Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Mr. J. J. Robertson added to the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

AYCLIFFE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DISTRICT HEATING) BILL

Order [27th April], "That the Bill be read a Second time upon Thursday, 11th May," read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Polling Stations, Ayrshire

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) why he has refused the application made under Section 11 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, of the Central Ayrshire Unionist Association for the provision of polling stations at Loans-Gailes and Barassie Street School;
(2) why he has refused the joint application made under Section 11 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, by the South Ayrshire Unionist Association and the South Ayrshire Constituency Labour Party for the provision of polling stations at Maidens and Lendalfoot.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? The first 44 Questions on the Paper are are addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Can you advise me to which Minister I could address a Question concerning the fact that the English Members are totally debarred from putting their legitimate Questions owing to this abuse of Question time by Scottish Members?

Mr. Speaker: Every Minister's turn comes round in due course. Scotland is entitled to its fair share. On other days Scotland comes last, but today Scotland comes first; and therefore I am afraid there is nothing to be done about it.

Mr. Osborne: May I point out that Scottish Members represent only one-tenth of this House and they have already a whole day to themselves on Thursday? Is there nothing we can do about it?

Mr. Speaker: Scotland is entitled to its fair share.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): The answer to the Questions is that I regret these applications were too late for any change to be made in time for the recent General Election, but I am considering, along with the returning officer, whether any satisfactory alteration can be made for the future.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend—I find it easier to address him in those terms—bear in mind that it is the very essence of our democracy that every adult should be encouraged to vote? Therefore, will he provide every reasonable and possible facility to enable that to be done everywhere?

Mr. McNeil: I shall consult with the returning officer to make all reasonable facilities available.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the first organisation referred to in Question 2 is in a state of liquidation?

Major McCallum: Is it a fact that where 50 householders get together in one village or hamlet they can have a polling station allowed to them?

Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that 30 interested electors can make a submission on the subject.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware, in reference to Question 1, that the Central Ayrshire Constituency Labour Party have also made representations for the provision of polling stations, and will he consider the joint representations?

Mr. McNeil: That is precisely why I shall consult with the returning officer.

Financial Relations

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state the Government's intentions in response to the widespread desire in Scotland for a full inquiry into the financial relations now subsisting between Scotland and the United Kingdom Treasury.

Mr. McNeil: I am not in a position to add to replies to previous Questions on this subject.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the Minister recall that it is now many weeks since I began putting down this almost weekly Question? Does he not know that the demand throughout Scotland for an inquiry of this kind is quite universal, and that he really must address himself to Scotland's requirements?

Mr. McNeil: I shall not, of course, overlook Scotland's requirements, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he was for many years a part of a Government which did nothing even about considering the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the Minister know when he will be able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. McNeil: Reasonably shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would it be before Thursday?

Mr. McNeil: I should like to leave the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make his own interpretation.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister made any representation to the Government on the subject, and does he hope to get a favourable answer?

Mr. McNeil: It is most unusual for a Minister to make any statement of that kind.

Nurses' and Midwives' Salaries

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the result of the arbitration by the Industrial Court on the claims to increased salaries by district nurses, who are at present receiving less than hospital nurses with lower qualifications.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to give details of the award

made by the Industrial Court upon the claim for increases in the salaries of domiciliary nurses and midwives.

Mr. McNeil: The Industrial Court have awarded for district nurses a salary scale of £340 to £465 effective from 1st February, 1949. The Court have directed that new scales for health visitors, midwives and other related grades covered by the claim should be negotiated by the Whitley Council in the light of the award.

Mr. Hamilton: May I ask what is the position about the senior grades of the nursing service, including matrons, assistant matrons, and others above the rank of ward sister? We are still waiting for a decision from the Whitley Council.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must expect the Whitley Council to take appropriate action.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to hurry them up?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite satisfied that the Whitley Council know their own business and handle it properly.

Disused Army Huts, Ayr

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state his policy in regard to the occupation of disused Army huts in the neighbourhood of Ayr by families from overcrowded houses in other districts.

Mr. McNeil: These huts will be cleared as soon as the occupants can get other accommodation. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on this subject on 2nd May.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he gave me before was distinctly unsatisfactory? If he will not grant enough licences to the county council or allow the private builders to build, how is the alternative accommodation to be provided?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making assumptions which are quite unwarranted. I am in consultation with the appropriate authorities about the building programme, and I must repeat that the primary responsibility for rehousing rests with the local authority.

Forestry Commission's Land, Kirkcudbright

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage of land owned by the Forestry Commission in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright on 1st July, 1939, and 1st July, 1949, respectively.

Mr. McNeil: The figures are 33,531 acres and 83,075 acres respectively.

Mr. McKie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the corresponding period there has been a drop of 70,000 in the sheep population of the county? Is he further aware that this cannot be attributed to the blizzard in 1947 because that part of Scotland came off very lightly at that time? Will he bear in mind the necessity for keeping a proper balance between afforestation and sheep farming?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, I will certainly give that assurance, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that in the same period not only has the sheep population improved compared with the previous year, but that over the comparable period the dairy population has also increased.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has reached regarding the effects of de-control and the increasing costs of production upon the prices obtained by fishermen for their products; and when the Government's constructive proposals for the fishing industry will be made known.

Mr. McNeil: Since the de-control of fish prices on 15th April a close watch has been kept on the movement of prices at all ports; it is, however, still too early to judge what will be the ultimate effect of de-control or to reach any conclusions. Meanwhile, the Government's examination of the problems of the white fish industry is continuing as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in touch with the fishermen and the fishermen's organisations, who are still exceedingly anxious about the situation?

Mr. McNeil: My fishery officers study prices, quality and general results twice a week.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering the problem, will the Minister take into account the suggestion which was made in responsible quarters that a subsidy should be given to the fish trade in the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: As I have already indicated, all suggestions upon this subject are being considered.

Laid School (Temporary Closing)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why Laid School was closed from 9th February until 1st March; whether the substitute teacher who was subsequently engaged was unemployed and available for duty from 9th February onwards; and if he is satisfied that the closing of the school for such a time was justified.

Mr. McNeil: Laid side School was closed on 9th February because of the teacher's illness. The substitute engaged on 1st March was free in the interval. She was, however, only 17 and lacked both experience and teaching qualification. I consider, therefore, that the authority were justified in first seeking to obtain a substitute with better qualifications.

Sir D. Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is an exceedingly serious matter to close down a school with 13 children because the teacher has phlebitis, and was it beyond the capacity of the education authority to transfer these children to a neighbouring school a few miles away or to get a substitute teacher much earlier?

Mr. McNeil: I believe it is a serious matter for such a number of children to be denied day school education, but it would also have been a serious matter to engage a girl whose qualifications were not adequate. I am satisfied, having looked at the situation, that the authority did all in their power at the time.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there was any sense of urgency at all in the manner in which this case was tackled by the education authority?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I repeat that I think the education authority acted appropriately.

Aged People (Hospital Beds)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that certification of old people is increasing in Scotland because a bed in an institution is required; and if he will take steps to remove this stigma from the elderly people requiring care and attention.

Mr. McNeil: I have no precise information on this subject but I certainly share my hon. Friend's anxiety that proper care and accommodation should be available for old people. Within the material and financial limits imposed by the present economic situation, hospitals and local authorities are doing all they can to meet this need.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the medical profession are gravely perturbed at the number of old people who are merely senile and yet have to be certified as lunatics? Would he consider introducing some such certification as "aged and infirm"?

Mr. McNeil: While I think that rather odd things are happening, I have no precise information, and I have been offered none, which would warrant the assumption made by my hon. Friend. However, on the second point, I certainly think there is a good case for considering some other description than that of certification, and I am looking closely at the point.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Would it be possible to put some form of pressure upon local authorities who only have permissive powers to do something more about institutional accommodation for old people who are not certifiable although they may be senile and in need of help?

Mr. Hubbard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be highly undesirable in any circumstances to put old people in that type of institution?

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of old people in Fife who are on the waiting list for hospital treatment for reasons arising from old age; and the number of beds available for this purpose in Fife.

Mr. McNeil: The number of old people in Fife on the waiting list for hospital treatment for conditions other than acute ones is estimated at 65, and about 64 beds in Fife are used for such patients. Numbers of Fife patients are, of course, admitted to hospitals outside the area.

Mr. Hubbard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during last year there were fewer beds available for that type of patient than in the previous year, and that at the present moment many old people suffering from illness because of their age are awaiting beds to be provided for them in the City of Edinburgh?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that the first assumption is correct, but it is of course true, as we all know, that more aged people suffering from conditions generally associated with senility are looking for additional treatment.

Unfinished Houses, Edinburgh

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in Edinburgh started by private enterprise builders before the war, whose construction has not yet been completed, owing to the withholding of necessary permits and licences.

Mr. McNeil: There are 32 houses in this category.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: As these houses have been under construction for 12 years and are deteriorating, and in view of the small number involved, will not the right hon. Gentleman give the licences necessary to complete them before further deterioration takes place?

Mr. McNeil: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, I have given this matter every consideration. If the contractors responsible would offer the houses to the people who have a claim to them and at a price that they could afford, I would reconsider the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly; there is no point in agreeing to the building of houses if the cost renders the rent prohibitive to the people who need them. If that point is met, I will gladly reconsider the position.

Female Prisoners, Perth (Transfer)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the female prisoners hitherto lodged in His Majesty's Prison, Perth, have now been removed to Duke Street, Glasgow.

Mr. McNeil: Untried prisoners, and those whose detention is unlikely to exceed a few days, will continue to be housed at Perth. Apart from these, the women's section of Perth Prison has been used mainly for prisoners serving sentences of six weeks or less. The transfer of such prisoners, of whom the average daily number has been seven, saves staff and will afford the prisoner better facilities for training, employment and recreation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the type of female prisoner who is brought to Perth Prison differs very considerably from the average prisoner in Duke Street? Does he think that the mixing of these different types is really in the best interests of the prisoners which, after all, is the most important thing?

Mr. McNeil: Duke Street Prison is one with which I am quite familiar, but, as my sex and record will show, completely as a visitor. I will very gladly re-examine the question in the light of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's submission.

Mr. Carmichael: When my right hon. Friend is making his examination, will he consider the advisability of closing Duke Street Prison altogether and finding accommodation in a much better place?

Mr. McNeil: If I had the facilities to enable me to close Duke Street Prison I certainly would do so, but I cannot pretend that I foresee these facilities quickly becoming available.

Single-teacher Schools

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of single-teacher schools in Scotland; and the total number of children in such schools in March, 1950.

Mr. McNeil: At 31st March, 1949, the latest date for which figures are available,

the number of single-teacher schools in Scotland was 870 and the total number of children in such schools was 15,429.

Illegal Fishing (Report)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered the Report of the Committee on Poaching and Illegal Fishing of Salmon and Trout in Scotland; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. McNeil: I am unable to add to the reply given on 1st May.

Mr. Perkins: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a firm decision on this matter?

Mr. McNeil: I could not, with any precision, but I give the undertaking that I am urgently considering the situation.

School Classes (Statistics)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give for the counties of Fife, Aberdeen, Lanark, Inverness, Ayr and Dumfries, and for the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, for the last date on which statistics are available, the total number of classes in primary schools and in secondary schools respectively; the number in each case of classes with not more than 30 children on the roll; the number with between 30 and 40, between 40 and 50 and over 50 respectively; and the corresponding figures for March, 1937.

Mr. McNeil: As the answer involves figures best presented in tabular form, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret, however, that no corresponding figures are available for March, 1937.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister indicate why no figures are available for 1937, because I understand the corresponding figures for 1937 were available for England and Wales?

Mr. McNeil: The figures are not available for the obvious reason that the records were not kept.

Following are the figures:




Education Authority
Number of Classes
Number of Classes with


Not more than 20 pupils on roll
Between 20 and 40 pupils on roll
Between 40 and 50 pupils on roll
More than 50 pupils on roll


Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary


Aberdeen (County).
638
242
150
95
411
139
73
8
4
—


Ayr
1,074
540
89
156
729
361
252
23
4
—


Dumfries
258
136
37
27
143
94
73
15
5
—


Fife
945
458
70
62
687
348
175
48
13
—


Inverness
418
117
183
42
225
66
9
9
1
—


Lanark
1,629
831
62
114
706
617
802
99
59
1


Burghs—


Aberdeen
605
309
64
37
508
253
33
19
—
—


Edinburgh
1,169
624
21
118
810
477
321
29
17
—


Glasgow
2,943
1,646
15
176
1,352
1,237
1,525
233
51
—

Non-traditional Houses (Defects)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authorities who have complained of defects in non-traditional houses; the total number of houses involved; and the approximate additional cost to the local authorities in remedying the defects.

Mr. McNeil: The remedying of defects is primarily a matter between local authorities and their contractors and I have no complete information on the subject. Where defects have arisen, contractors have agreed to remedy them without cost to local authorities.

Mr. McInnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have already undertaken to meet the additional cost of carrying out repairs in respect of three types of non-traditional house?

Mr. McNeil: I am not aware of that, but I should be very glad to look at the particulars.

Commander Galbraith: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that the upkeep, the cost of maintenance, of these houses is greater than for traditional houses?

Mr. McNeil: I would rather have notice of that question. I regret that I cannot answer it without notice.

Four-Apartment Houses (Prices)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average tender price for a four-apartment

traditional house in Scotland in 1949 as compared with 1948; and the respective prices for a four-apartment non-traditional house.

Mr. McNeil: The average tender price for a four-apartment traditional house was £1,281 in 1948 and £1,420 in 1949. The prices for four-apartment non-traditional houses outside the Highlands and Islands, recently negotiated by my Department, range from £1,055 to £1,270, compared with a range of from £1,245 to £1,395 last year.

Mr. McInnes: Would my right hon. Friend inform me what action, if any, has been taken by his Department in regard to the report of the Scottish Building Costs Committee towards effecting a reduction in building costs?

Mr. McNeil: If my hon. Friend refers to the non-traditional house, I have given a remit to the Committee.

Commander Galbraith: Do the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman include the cost of the site and of providing the services, or are they merely the cost of building the houses?

Mr. McNeil: No; these are literally costs of erection.

Housing Surveys

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the housing problem in Scotland as revealed by the lists submitted by local authorities to the Department of Health.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses are required in the county of Ayr arising from the recent housing surveys carried out by Ayrshire housing authorities.

Mr. McNeil: Since different authorities adopted different methods, the recent review by local authorities has not yielded an accurate picture. I propose to discuss with local authorities the scope and timing of a survey based on uniform standards.

Mr. Manuel: Cannot the Minister give a date when it would be possible for him to give a definite reply about the houses needed in any local authority area in Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot give any indication of when I shall be in a position to give a precise and reliable estimate.

Housing Allocations

Mr. Clunie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions have been made to deal with the housing problem in Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly and Inverkeithing; and if he proposes to increase the allocation to these burghs in view of the waiting lists for housing.

Mr. McNeil: There are 446 houses under construction in these burghs and 594 more, including 228 recently allocated, have yet to be begun. It therefore would not seem very appropriate to allocate more houses meantime.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Ayrshire housing authorities have made applications to him for additional allocations of houses for this year; and how many authorities have had their applications refused.

Mr. McNeil: Only Irvine have asked for an increased allocation and I have authorised 20 additional houses.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has asked local authorities to accept houses of Scottish Special Housing Association as part of their recent allocation; and if refusal to accept these terms will mean a corresponding reduction in the allocation.

Mr. McNeil: The houses to be built by the association entirely at Exchequer

expense in areas where needs are greatest are in addition to the allocations made to the local authorities.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are thoroughly dissatisfied with the houses of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which compare very unfavourably with their own houses, both in appearance and in rental? Why should not the local authority be given its maximum allocation without being asked to take S.S.H.A. houses?

Mr. McNeil: I agree with my hon. Friend that I have looked at some houses built by the Association which do not measure up to the standard I would like to see but, on the other hand, I ask her to reflect whether there are not local authorities which need this kind of supplementation to their efforts. The results are frequently very welcome.

Mrs. Mann: The local authority of Coatbridge have built more S.S.H.A. houses than any other local authority in Scotland. They are thoroughly dissatisfied with these houses and do not want any more of them. Why should these houses be forced on them?

Mr. McNeil: They are not forced on them. My recollection is that the allocation of S.S.H.A. houses for Coatbridge in the last allocation was only 50, but I should like to look again at those 50.

Housing Progress Reports

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that all local authorities in Scotland are proceeding with their housing programme with all possible speed; if he has any progress reports on house building at its various stages within each local authority's ambit; and if he would consider appointing progress officers and issuing progress reports.

Mr. McNeil: We cannot, as my hon. Friend knows, afford to be satisfied until further substantial inroads have been made into Scottish housing needs. Housing schemes are visited regularly by officers of my Department who report on the progress being made. The position in each district is published in the quarterly Housing Return.

Commander Galbraith: Could not the progress report be made by the local authority instead of the right hon. Gentleman employing additional officials for that purpose?

Mr. McNeil: I have looked at both points. The staff which is employed for this purpose is not large and is based locally and I think that, all in all, the small staff thoroughly justify their existence.

Farm Wages Inquiry

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent survey of the wages of farm workers has been made by the Scottish Department of Agriculture: and what were its conclusions.

Mr. McNeil: Since 1947 the Department of Agriculture has been conducting a farm wages inquiry designed to obtain accurate information on this subject and the inquiry continues. The results to date are summarised in the current issue of the Department's publication, "Farm Economics," a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hughes: Could my right hon. Friend give some indication whether farm wages have increased since the previous surveys?

Mr. McNeil: I could not do so without notice.

Night Dispensing (Tradeston)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to provide an all-night dispensing service in the division of the hon. Member for Tradeston.

Mr. McNeil: There are already arrangements under the National Health Service for obtaining drugs and medicines urgently required. An all-night dispensing service is a facility which cannot reasonably be expected except in the largest centres and, as my hon. Friend informed the hon. Gentleman last week, there is one shop in Glasgow open all night

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the provision of one shop is not regarded as being a complete way of meeting this need in the city of Glasgow

and that in my division ward committees and private individuals are pressing the urgency of the extension of this service?

Mr. McNeil: I will look at any submissions and any figures, but I am inclined to think that if there were any trading justification for such an extension it would already have occurred.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, politically speaking, it is urgently desirable to dispense with the services of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin)?

Mr. McGovern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as there is only one shop for this purpose in Glasgow, when people go there for urgent medicine they are frequently asked to return in three or four hours? There should be an extension of this service.

Mr. McNeil: I think that is probably a pretty hurried conclusion. Normal general practice is that if a medicine or drug is needed with very great urgency, then the drug or its near equivalent is normally, in night hours, supplied by the general practitioner.

Electricity Development (Expenditure)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what districts the expenditure by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, forecast in paragraph 67 of the Economic Survey for 1950, of £2.1 million for main transmission and £2.3 million for distribution, will take place; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: With permission, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the transmission line schemes under construction or which it is hoped to begin during 1950. Distribution work is in progress throughout the whole of the North of Scotland area.

The following is the information:

Sloy — Glasgow, Tummel — Garry — Bonnybridge, Fannich-Boat of Garten, Keith — Aberdeen, Fasnakyle — Beauly, Shira — Inveruglas, Tummel Bridge — Inveruglas, Aberdeen — Dundee, Fasnakyle — Fort Augustus.

Private House Building

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make any further statement as to the number of houses to be built under private licence in Scotland; and as to any further discretion to be allowed to local authorities in this connection.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what relaxation of the regulations governing the issue of licences for the building of private houses he proposes to make.

Mr. McNeil: It is too soon to come to any conclusions about the concessions which I announced in reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Forman) on 29th March, but I will review the position again in six months or thereabouts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Health, made a statement which certainly brought great satisfaction to a number of people, why is this satisfaction to be denied to the people of Scotland even for six months?

Mr. McNeil: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows from his experience of both offices, the position of building in Scotland, particularly in relation to the proportion of private enterprise housing, is very different from that in England, and I would not think that the remedy applicable in England need necessarily be applicable in Scotland. At any rate, I suggest to him that I ought to give this scheme a run and then look at the results.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Since the right hon. Gentleman announced his scheme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced what he held out as a concession. Is it to be taken that this concession applies only south of the Border? After all, it is generally supposed that the housing shortage in Scotland is at least as great as that in England.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that I have already given an indication of how I mean to apply, in my best judgment, to meet the needs of the community, the concession which the Chancellor has announced.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend remember that in the City of Glasgow there are 95,000 people at the moment

on the waiting list of the Corporation for houses, and that most of those people simply could not pay the prices demanded by the private profit-making builders?

Captain Crookshank: But they would like the houses all the same.

Potato Lifting (Child Labour)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children he expects to be employed in this year's potato lifting in Scotland; the average age of the children; the number of school hours which will be lost by each child; and when he hopes to discontinue this form of child labour.

Mr. McNeil: As the answer is necessarily lengthy and involves figures, I propose with permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Carmichael: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his mind is set in the direction of stopping, and whether he will consider the possibility of stopping, children of school age from going out harvesting in school time every year?

Mr. McNeil: I assure my hon. Friend that I do feel concerned at the interruption of normal education by such methods as this. That is quite distinct from the anxiety I share to get city children into the country. However, while I share my hon. Friend's general concern, I must in all honesty say that I cannot hold out hopes to him for the immediate—or anything like the immediate—future.

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatly increased acreage of potatoes in Scotland cannot be harvested without the help of these children?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite aware of that and quite concerned.

Following is the reply:

About 50,000–55,000 school children will be required to assist in lifting the Scottish potato crop this year. They will be distributed approximately as follows:


School children


Local children
38,000


Billeted children
4,000


Children transported daily from towns
8,000

The average age of the children will be about 14 years. Over one-quarter will lose no school time, since they will be employed during school holidays; the rest will lose periods varying widely from a few days to about three weeks, with a prescribed normal maximum of 80 hours of school time.

In the light of the report of the Harvest Labour Committee, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend, it is clear that assistance from school children will be needed on a substantial scale for at least some years to come.

Local Authorities (Lawyers)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation for the purpose of preventing lawyers in receipt of compensation for loss of office from local authorities, acting against such local authorities in litigation.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently we have had a case of an Ayrshire local authority paying compensation at the rate of £600 a year to an official who was in court against that local authority?

Mr. McNeil: I see the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I think it would be unfair that, because a man is paid compensation for loss of office, he should be prohibited from following his normal employment elsewhere.

Herring Fishing (Flat Price Schemes)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Herring Industry Board's decision to exclude Lochinver from the Minch scheme, having regard to its central situation on the mainland, will cause hardship to local fishermen; and if he will investigate this matter.

Mr. McNeil: Arrangements for the Minch schemes are within the competence of the Herring Industry Board. I am informed, however, that should the Board's wider proposals for the flat price schemes become operative during the summer fishing, Lochinver will be included with other ports.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the position with regard to the Herring Industry Board's proposed scheme for the Minch area.

Mr. McNeil: The Scottish Herring Producers' Association have rejected proposals made by the Herring Industry Board for a flat price scheme to be operated at all ports, including those in the Minch, on the ground that the prices offered by the Board are too low.

Mr. MacMillan: Are they completely stuck there now; and what action is being taken to put into operation a scheme which is vitally important for the employment of the industry in the production of herrings?

Mr. McNeil: I agree about its importance. The Herring Producers' Association have made certain submissions to the Government, but of course in the end it will have to be decided between the Board and the Association.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Are the Board and the Association now in conversation about this, or has the whole matter just stopped?

Mr. McNeil: No, I think intermittent conversations are going on, as is obvious from the Press. The point that I must in fairness make is that the Herring Producers' Association have made certain submissions to the Government.

Electricity, Outer Hebrides

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what areas in the Outer Hebrides it is intended to extend electricity this year.

Mr. McNeil: In Lewis, electricity distribution lines are at present being erected in the Eye Peninsula and in the Tolsta area, and current is being provided for new consumers in the area continuously. Work has begun on the lines from Stornoway to Barvas and to Ness.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will this current be alternating or intermittent?

Rural Housing (Improvement Grants)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make an order under Section 77 of the


Agricultural (Scotland) Act, 1948, which empowers him to raise housing improvement grants from a limit of £250 to £300 without reference to Parliament, so that crofters and agricultural workers will receive grants equal to those made to all other citizens.

Mr. McNeil: I am not satisfied that an increase in the limit of £250 is justified at present, since crofters normally undertake the unskilled work themselves.

Sir D. Robertson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how crofters and agricultural workers can get a house improved or repaired any more cheaply than anyone else?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is in error in thinking that the same provisions apply to crofters and agricultural workers. There are separate provisions for the agricultural workers. As regards the crofters, the traditional method is that the crofter does the job, and does it most excellently, himself, except for the skilled work.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is it the Government's policy to penalise a man for helping himself?

Mr. McNeil: No, it is the Government's policy to assist people such as crofters—and anyone else—who can apply spare-time labour to this job.

Sir D. Robertson: In view of the injustice implied here, I give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of hearing aids issued to date in Scotland; and the number of applicants awaiting supply.

Mr. McNeil: Six thousand one hundred and thirteen and 12,592 respectively.

Sir T. Moore: Is it true that some of these people have not yet heard that the Government were defeated by an anti-Socialist majority at the last election?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that any kind of hearing aid, either for them or for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will enable them or him to hear such a thing much as he would like it

Tuberculosis (Ex-Service Personnel)

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland what accommodation is available at present for treating ex-Service personnel suffering from tuberculosis in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: There are some 4,726 beds available for respiratory tuberculosis patients, to all of which ex-Service men and women have equal title with other members of the community. In addition, the Scottish branch of the Red Cross Society own 154 beds, reserved entirely for Service and ex-Service personnel.

Mrs. Cullen: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Glasgow at present ex-Service personnel suffering from tuberculosis have to have their names added to the long waiting list of the local authority?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that is completely true There are at least two institutions where beds for ex-Service personnel suffering from this type of disease are used However. I do not want to deny that the waiting list of ex-Service and civilian personnel suffering from this disease is disturbing.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is not the real difficulty in this case a shortage of nurses rather than a shortage of beds?

Mr. McNeil: In regard to the general problem, that is the primary factor.

Capital Investment (Housing)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure, national and by local authorities per head of population, on housing in Scotland in 1949.

Mr. McNeil: Capital investment on housing in Scotland in 1949, excluding repairs and maintenance, is estimated at £39.5 million, equivalent to £7 12s. 8d. per head of population.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figure we expend on defence is greater than that? Would it not be for the benefit of Scotland if the figures were reversed?

Mr. McNeil: The figures are not comparable because in one case we are talking of capital and in the other case my hon. Friend chooses to talk about revenue.

Industrial Workers (Housing)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will publish the list of those local authorities to whom he has offered additional houses for industrial workers, indicating in each case the number of houses offered and the number so far accepted;
(2) what are the terms and conditions of his offer of additional industrial houses to certain local authorities.

Mr. McNeil: Since the answer necessarily involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The houses were offered on the understanding that they would be made available to employees of firms recommended to the local authorities by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom firms who are in need of such allocations should make application at the present time? Is that in the answer?

Mr. McNeil: No, it is not. I think it should be made to the President of the Board of Trade, but I shall be very glad to look at the point and to communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Herbert Williams: If these people leave the employment of the firms concerned, will they lose their houses?

Mr. McNeil: If these people leave the area, like anyone else——

Sir H. Williams: I said—if they leave their employment.

Mr. McNeil: If these gentlemen leave the area, they will, like anyone else—[Interruption.]—they will, like anyone else, forfeit their houses, but any other variation upon that standard practice will be a decision for the local authority.

Sir H. Williams: What if they leave their employment?

Mr. McNeil: That is a variation and therefore a matter for the local authority.

Mr. Osborne: Will these people live in tied cottages?

Mr. McNeil: They do not live in tied cottages. They live in houses which they rent.

Following are the figures:


Dumfries Burgh
…
…
100
*


Kirkcaldy
…
…
30



Glenrothes New Town
…

30
*


Hamilton
…
…
50



Falkirk
…

40



Hawick
…
…
24



Jedburgh
…
…
16



Galashiels
…
…
16



Innerleithen
…
…
16



Inverness County:—


Coal, Fort William
…
…
50
*


Kinlochleven
…
…
30
*



…
…
402



* The allocations, marked with an asterisk have been accepted by the authorities concerned. The others were intimated only on 5th May. Certain further allocations are under consideration.

Piers and Jetties, Isle of Lewis

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications from Ross County Council for grant in aid of construction and reconstruction respectively of piers or jetties in the Isle of Lewis are at present under consideration, by his Department.

Mr. McNeil: There are none in either category.

Mr. MacMillan: Does my right hon. Friend not think it deplorable that this Conservative County Council has not even made application and yet is continually attacking the Government, through the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod), for not having allocated more?

Teachers' Pensions (Payment)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will alter the present arrangement whereby retired school teachers in Scotland are paid their salaries quarterly, to payment on a monthly basis, in view of the difficulties which the present arrangement is causing to many of the pensioners.

Mr. McNeil: The proposed change which would have to apply on both sides of the Border has been noted for consideration when legislation affecting teachers' pensions is required.

Mr. Macdonald: When is that likely to be?

Mr. McNeil: When it is required.

Hospital Staffs (Accommodation Charges)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to see that the recent decision to increase the charge for board and accommodation of the staff in Scottish hospitals is revised where such accommodation is in Army huts as compared with that in permanent modern buildings.

Mr. McNeil: The principle of a flat rate has been accepted by the appropriate instrument, the Nurses Whitley Council, and I therefore do not propose to interfere.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this type of accommodation varies considerably in different parts of Scotland; and is it right that a man or woman should have to pay £100 a year for accommodation in a broken-down Army hut as compared with permanent accommodation in a solid residence?

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman wants to destroy the machinery of the Whitley Council, he will, of course, submit proposals to that effect, but as long as the Whitley Council are the appropriate and operative instrument, I do not propose to interfere.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Do the Whitley Council also cover the cases of technical and administrative staff, who are also affected by this very serious decision which increases charges by over 100 per cent. in some cases?

Mr. McNeil: I am afraid that I shall have to have a more precise description than that before I could answer.

Mr. Macdonald: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Whitley Council to inspect these premises?

Mr. McNeil: I have no doubt that when the Whitley Council came to a

decision they had full information as to the conditions from both nurses and officials.

Self-Government

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the fact that 1,250,000 people have signed the Scottish Covenant, which asks for Scottish self-government to be established, he is now in a position to state the Government's policy, or when he will do so.

Mr. McNeil: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 8th May.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many English Members would be delighted if Scotland had home rule?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dividends, Interest and Profits

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he reconciles his recent estimate that dividends and interest distributions represent 14s. 6d. per week on wages and salaries with the previous estimate that 25 per cent. of profits would represent a rise of 4d. in the pound to wage earners; and on what data were the two estimates based.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): The answer I gave the hon. Member on 25th April was that the total payments of dividends and interest by companies and public enterprises in the calendar year 1949, when divided by the total number of wage and salary earners in 1949, gave a figure per head of 14s. 6d. per week. The statement I made to the T.U.C. in September, 1948, was that a quarter of distributed corporation profits, after deduction of tax, in 1947 was equivalent to an average addition to wages and salaries after deduction of tax of 4d. in the pound. The figures are calculated from estimates in the latest White Paper on National Income and Expenditure as regards 1949, and from similar estimates as regards 1947.

Mr. Osborne: Are not these two statements quite contradictory; and is not the


second statement likely to induce the industrial worker to think that there are large sums of money which he could have as wages, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous statement to the T.U.C. pointed out that there was only 4d. in the pound extra that could be had if they took the whole of the distributed profits?

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the hon. Gentleman, of course, was made to comply with the Question as he put it, and I was obliged to give the answer in that form. There is nothing inconsistent between the two. If the calculations are made upon the same basis, they come to roughly 4d, in each case.

Mr. Manuel: Do these increases apply to Scotland?

Mr. Awbery: Is not this an argument for the "freezing" of profits and wages?

Purchase Tax (Vehicles)

Mr. Black: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under his regulations, Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles is payable on a commercial vehicle purchased by a charitable organisation for use for a meals-on-wheels service for old age pensioners; and, if so, whether he will exempt from Purchase Tax a commercial vehicle purchased in such circumstances.

Sir S. Cripps: Vehicles which make provision for the serving of both food and drink in or at the vehicle are within the proposed exemption for mobile canteens. It would not be possible to provide an exemption for normal delivery vans which are purchased by a charitable organisation for carrying food containers.

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Land Rover vehicle is subjected to 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax when it is designed entirely for agricultural use.

Sir S. Cripps: The Land Rover has, I understand, a variety of uses and is not designed entirely for agriculture. Representations have been received and are under consideration.

Mr. Watkinson: If these representations are under consideration, might they

have favourable consideration? I believe that this vehicle is actually designed primarily for agricultural use and not for use on the roads.

Sir S. Cripps: That does not appear from the application that has been made.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the Chancellor received any representations from the manufacturers indicating whether orders for these vehicles have been cancelled in consequence of the tax?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot deal in question and answer with representations made from individual firms.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of the types of trailer which will be subject to the 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax on vehicles.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to exempt farm tractor trailers from the new Purchase Tax on motor lorries.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles will also be levied on trailers used for agricultural purposes.

Sir S. Cripps: The Third Schedule to the Finance Bill sets out the classes of vehicles it is proposed to charge and the proposed exemptions. Among the trailers which will not be taxed are the ordinary kinds used for carriage of farm produce and designed for towing behind a car, lorry or farm tractor.

Mr. Erroll: Could the Chancellor give us the positive information, which would be much easier for us, by publishing a list of those which will be taxed rather than a list of those which will be exempted?

Sir S. Cripps: It will be found in the Third Schedule to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Hurd: Is the particular type of Ferguson trailer which is articulated with the tractor also to be exempt?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I should have to have notice of that.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the Chancellor bear in mind that there are likely to be some extraordinary anomalies due to the


articulated vehicles from the manufacturer coming to the coachbuilder before 1st May, 1950, and the building of the coach or trailer section after 1st May, 1950; and will he, therefore, see that the Purchase Tax is not applicable to the whole vehicle?

Sir S. Cripps: There are always points of that sort which arise when a tax is imposed, and we shall of course have regard to it.

Nationalised Industries (Compensation)

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations prescribe that compensation payments by nationalised industries for loss of office and emoluments shall be free of tax.

Sir S. Cripps: The question of Income Tax liability on these payments depends on the facts of each case.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Chancellor say in roughly what proportion these payments are liable to tax; is it half of them, or less, or more?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I could not possibly say without a knowledge of the individual cases.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would it be true to say that where lump sums are paid under these regulations, no Income Tax is paid?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I am not going to give an interpretation of the law in that way.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that there is a Motion being moved by His Majesty's Government tonight raising this issue, will the Chancellor inform himself before then?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In order to clarify the situation, will the Chancellor make them all liable for tax and take steps in the Finance Bill to make the legal position quite clear?

P.A.Y.E. Tables

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether copies of the Income Tax Pay-As-You-Earn code are available to the public;

and why copies are not obtainable from His Majesty's Stationery Office.

Sir S. Cripps: I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the P.A.Y.E. tables. These may be seen at public libraries, tax offices, citizens' advice bureaux and most trade union offices. Employers keep copies available for reference by their employees. There is no demand for copies for sale.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that the time of clerical staffs would be saved in considerable measure if a few copies were available to those misguided people who want them?

Sir S. Cripps: They are available if people would go and look for them, in public libraries, tax offices, citizens' advice bureaux, trade union offices or in their employers' offices.

Income Tax (Lifeboatmen)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss of revenue to the Exchequer if the tax on lifeboatmen's gratuities were remitted.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.

Petrol Duty (Doctors)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider measures to meet the new burden that the increased Petrol Duty is placing upon medical practitioners in general practice.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 4th May by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald).

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the Chancellor aware that the incidence of the extra tax on petrol will hurt most the country practitioners who have to do most mileage in their cars, and those who are, in fact, already suffering most from the inadequacy of the allowance for transport?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the answer I have referred to.

Emigrants (Sterling Transfers)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that emigrants to Canada who arrived in that Dominion on 9th September, 1943, and who, under emigration concessions, were entitled to a second instalment of £250 on 9th September, 1949, and on whose behalf application had been made to the Bank of England prior to devaluation for permission to transmit, are now faced with considerable loss owing to the fact that consent was not given until after devaluation; and whether he will take steps to see that these emigrants are not penalised by this delay.

Sir S. Cripps: Transfers for any purpose can only be converted into foreign currency at the rate of exchange ruling at the time when the funds are presented for conversion; but any emigrant who falls into the category described may make supplementary sterling transfers from his own resources, so that he will receive the same amount of foreign currency, calculated at the present rate of exchange, as he would have received at the rates ruling when the application was made.

Mr. Baldwin: Does not that mean that the emigrant is actually out of pocket over that transaction?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that a lot of people are out of pocket over devaluation.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the currency of Canada is now known officially as foreign currency?

Sir S. Cripps: It has always been known as foreign currency.

Mr. Baldwin: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is fair that an emigrant who made his application before devaluation should now be made to suffer because there was delay in a Government Department, and is that a good example to set the citizens of this country?

Sir S. Cripps: It does not arise from delay in any Government Department; it arises from the question at what moment the money was presented for conversion.

Electricity Stock (Issue Price)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the new 3½ per cent. British Electricity Stock, 1976–79, is being issued at 99 per cent., when 18 months ago a similar loan was issued on a 3 per cent. basis at 99½ per cent.; and if he will make a statement on the general policy of Government borrowing.

Sir S. Cripps: The issue was made, in each case, on terms which were in line with current market conditions.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that Government credit has fallen by one-half per cent. in the last 18 months, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect that it will fall another one-half per cent. in the next 18 months, and can he stabilise it even on a 4 per cent. basis?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that with the present records of this Government, it should improve and increase.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what proportion of this was taken up inside Government Departments?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I cannot.

Tanganyika Concessions (Shares Sale)

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate further amongst all parties to the negotiations, both official and unofficial, the leakage of news on 26th April, concerning the Government's sale of shares in Tanganyika Concessions, in view of the fact that these Concessions are a principal source of uranium.

Wing-Commander Bullus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate further how the essential details of the transaction between the Bank of England and an Anglo-Belgian group of mining companies for the sale of 1,667,961 shares of Tanganyika Concessions came to be published on 26th April, two days before the announcement was made by him.

Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied that further inquiries would not serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Grimston: Does not the Chancellor think it very disturbing that our only Communist daily newspaper, which is normally relied on to be last with the news, should show itself so very well-informed on this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that it is very disturbing in view of the very wide circulation which necessarily this agreement had before it was actually settled.

Mr. Eden: Do I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made inquiries and investigated?

Sir S. Cripps: I have made inquiries, and I find that the agreement bad necessarily a very wide circulation before it was actually finalised, owing to the large number of groups and other people interested in it.

Currency Notes (Sale Abroad)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what differentiation is made under existing Regulations between the sale by private persons and by firms of £1 notes abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir. If either is regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for exchange control purposes, the sale is an offence under the Exchange Control Act, 1947; otherwise it is not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the case of Thomas Cook in New York was not an offence under the Regulations and since the company is a subsidiary of the British Transport Commission resident in this country, why did he say on previous occasions that Thomas Cook was not subject to these exchange Regulations?

Sir S. Cripps: The company which dealt in New York, I understand, with these notes was an American company.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it not true that Thomas Cook of New York is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook (Overseas) Limited, which is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook in this country?

Sir S. Cripps: It does not make the slightest difference. The question is the domicile or residence of the particular company.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the company is held and, indeed, owned by a company resident in this country, why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman take exception to the rules applying to a company domiciled in this country being applied to Thomas Cook?

Sir S. Cripps: Because they do not apply according to the law.

Gold (South African Proposals)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the representatives of this country on the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund voted for, or against, the South African proposals on the price and sales of gold.

Sir S. Cripps: His Majesty's Government instructed their representative to vote against both proposals.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the value of this proposal from the point of view of the sterling area as a gold producer, the Government thought it necessary to take this view?

Sir S. Cripps: That is not a matter capable of explanation in answer to a supplementary question.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the Chancellor's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Timber and Steel Allocations

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the allocation of timber and steel was made in 1949 to housing, hospitals, schools, Defence Services and armament manufacture, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: As regards housing, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). The percentages for hospitals and schools respectively were 0.35 per cent. and 0.8 per cent. in the case of softwood and 0.1 per cent. and 0.55 per cent. in the case of steel. The percentages for Defence Services and armament manufacture, exclusive of Service housing already included


in the housing percentages, are 3.4 per cent. for softwood and 2.9 per cent. for steel.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM (RESERVED DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many documents in the British Museum are reserved from public use.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Out of a collection of nearly 70,000 manuscripts, 14 volumes and odd leaves from 11 other volumes are reserved, in the sense that some restriction is placed by the Trustees on their use by students. In addition, there are about 40 cases in which they must reserve a manuscript for a period in order to comply with a condition subject to which the manuscript was given and accepted. These figures do not include certain manuscripts which the Trustees have been advised by a Government Department to reserve for a period on grounds of public interest. The numbers of such manuscripts, and of other articles reserved from public use, are not readily available.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer the next Question rather more loudly, so that the answer can be heard. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Museum are breaking the law in withholding any document from public use?

Mr. Speaker: The Question was not whether they were breaking the law, but only how many documents were reserved.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the underlying principle of the British Museum in selecting documents and reserving them from public use, thereby breaking the law in doing so?

Mr. Jay: I have explained both those points recently in a Debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman referred to some documents being reserved, on advice from the Government, in the public interest. Can he explain on what grounds this form of censorship takes place?

Mr. Jay: One obvious ground would be security.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why Ashley MS. 1755, letters by Simian Solomon, Ashley MS. 5081, letters from A. C. Swinburne to C. A. Howell, Ashley MS. 5256, a poem by A. C. Swinburne, Ashley MSS. 5271, 5751, A4395, A4406, and B4436b, verses, A4464b, letter from A. C. Swinburne to T. Watts-Dunton, are now reserved from public use although they were freely available for inspection from the time of their purchase before the war until 1948.

Mr. Jay: There has been no change in the rules applying to these volumes. Their contents are such that they are made available only to students who satisfy the authorities of the Museum that they wish to consult them for a serious purpose.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain why in that case Dr. Randolph Hughes, who was a senior lecturer in French literature at London University for 14 years, was consistently refused permission to see these documents over a period of one year?

Mr. Jay: Individual applications of this kind are within the discretion of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Travel Association (Advertisements)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the type of advertisements appearing in the British Travel and Holidays Association magazine "Coming Events"; and if he will arrange for these advertisements to be more selective, thus giving a better impression of British products and amenities for tourists.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The choice of advertisements for "Coming Events" is a matter for the British Travel and Holidays Association and is made on a commercial basis. I understand that their policy is to select advertisements for those goods and services most likely to interest overseas visitors.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one advertisement in the last issue represented a Dutch


shipping line, and will he have a word with the people running this magazine to see that the advertisements are more representative of British industry?

Mr. Bottomley: I will look into that.

Utility Furniture

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion by volume and by value that utility production has been of total furniture production in recent months.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): No precise information is available, but it is estimated that in 1949 utility accounted for about 85 per cent. by value of total furniture production.

Decorated China (Home Market)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what requests he has received recently to release limited quantities of decorated earthenware and china for the home market; from whom received; and what are his intentions in respect of same.

Mr. Rhodes: Representations have been received from a number of trade associations for the release of limited quantities of decorated china and earthenware for sale in the home market. These are under consideration. It may be possible to relax the restrictions on such sales for certain special lines, but I am satisfied that for the sake of our dollar revenue the restrictions must continue for decorated china and earthenware generally. Certain quantities of export rejects and frustrated exports are already available.

Mr. Davies: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, before coming to any final decision, he will consult with the society representing the workers, who have a wide knowledge of this problem?

Mr. Rhodes: I will bear that in mind when the matter comes up for consideration.

BURMA (COMMONWEALTH LOAN)

3.30 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government to combine with other Commonwealth countries in providing a loan for internal expenditure to the Government of the Union of Burma.
The main facts about this loan were very briefly set out in a joint public statement issued by all the Governments concerned on 25th March. It is brief, and I do not think I can do better than read it to the House. It is as follows:
In response to the request which was made by the Government of the Union of Burma to the Governments of Ceylon, India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom, these Governments, together with the Government of Australia, offered the Union Government a loan of £6 million. The Government of the Union of Burma have accepted this offer and expressed to the Commonwealth Governments concerned their thanks and appreciation of the gesture of friendship and the desire to help which the offer of the loan represents.
The loan is for a period of two years, and will be drawn by the Government of the Union of Burma as and when required for internal expenditure. The Burmese rupees for such expenditure will be obtained by the deposit of loan of sterling with Burmese Currency Board in accordance with existing provisions of the currency laws. The loan will bear interest at a rate equivalent to that earned by the Burmese Currency Board through the investment of sterling, and will thus in effect be interest free.
I do not think there is very much beyond that I need add about the terms and details of the loan, except to mention the shares which will be borne by the respective contributing Governments. The total amount, as I have indicated, is £6 million, of which the United Kingdom will be contributing £3¾ million, India £1 million, Pakistan and Australia £500,000 each, and Ceylon £240,000. All the contributing Governments are now ready to sign the agreement in Rangoon. The Burmese Government are anxious to draw the first instalment, and all the contributing Governments have stated their readiness to implement their share immediately upon signature, or, at any rate, very shortly afterwards.
The House will therefore appreciate that the Government are anxious to get its approval without delay. Provision has been made already in the Foreign Office Grants and Services Estimates for 1950–51


for this sum, but these Estimates may not come before the House for quite a number of weeks, and the Government wish to get approval in principle for the loan now in order that an advanced payment may be made.
Before I deal with the purposes which have prompted the Government to contribute to this loan, I think I ought to tell the House something of the origin of the proposals and of the loan negotiations. From the beginning it has been a joint Commonwealth enterprise. In May, 1949, shortly after the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers in London, a statement was issued by the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon stating that their Prime Ministers had agreed in London to support the Government of Thakin Nu, within the limits of their powers, with a view to restoring peace in Burma.
Later in the year a request for help was received from Burma, and in October discussions began between representatives of the Burmese Government and the Committee of Ambassadors, the Ambassadors of the four countries concerned, in Rangoon. In these discussions the Government was, of course, represented by our Ambassador to Burma, Mr. James Bowker, and his Financial adviser, Mr. Potter, who carried on these negotiations and to whose skill in the matter I should like to pay tribute. Following on these conversations there was the Colombo Conference in January, at which agreement was reached on the scope and form of the aid which should be given to Burma. It was at this stage that the Australian Government agreed also to participate. A formal offer of the loan was made to Burma early in March, and this offer was accepted on 25th March.
The House will therefore see that the loan represents not only the United Kingdom view but the view of four other Commonwealth Governments on the best practicable way of giving assistance to Burma. The reasons for this concensus of opinion are not very hard to understand when one considers the situation in South-East Asia generally, and in Burma in particular. I think it is now generally recognised that South-East Asia is one of the critical areas in the world politically, and that there is a great deal

of anxiety about the situation in a number of different parts of that area. I hope it is also generally recognised that in these circumstances we should not merely be spectators but, so far as we can, should pursue a positive policy of helping our friends in that area to carry out the immense task which faces them.
Our objectives in the area are broadly to encourage the development and stability of the independent national states there, to help them to raise their standard of living and to maintain their independence. It is only in this way that they can check the spread of Communism, which, of course, thrives on disorder and misery. We have embarked upon a process of Commonwealth co-operation to this end, in which the biggest step so far has been the Colombo Conference. One result of the Conference is this loan, and another is the Economic Conference at Sydney which is taking place this month.
As regards our policy towards Burma in particular, it is natural that we should take a particular close and friendly interest in this country because of our historical connections, and because of the friendly relations we have with Burma arising from the 1947 Anglo-Burma Treaty. That Treaty speaks of the complete freedom, equality and independence of Burma, and of the need for consolidating cordial friendship and good understanding between our two countries. In the last two years since the Treaty was signed, the Government have done everything in their power to live up to the spirit of that agreement and to their pledges. It is in that spirit that they have approached the Burmese request for aid in this instance.
Already we have had some discussion in another context of the present conditions in Burma, and there has been, and, indeed, still is, a good deal of anxiety about the situation there. As the House knows, throughout the whole of the period under discussion the Burmese Government have had to deal with a number of insurrections in different parts of the country. There has been considerable disorder, disruption to communications, trade and production, and a consequent loss of life and of property. Troubles of this kind are, of course, paralleled in varying degree throughout the whole of the South-East Asian area, but in regard to


Burma there are, I think, rather special conditions which are responsible for this situation. It is right to remember that they not only have to deal with the aftermath of the Japanese occupation of their country, fought over with great ferocity in two separate campaigns, but that this has left behind a legacy not only of destruction but of regional factions, with a population which in many areas is heavily armed—what one might call private armies surviving from the war-time days.
It is clear that the actual independent state of Burma has had very great and exceptional difficulties to contend with. It is our view that the Government of Thakin Nu have been and still are struggling manfully against these difficulties. They have had a considerable measure of success, and increasing success, in recent months, and there is no doubt, whatever anxiety may still remain, the situation is undoubtedly appreciably better than it was 12 months ago. It is also better than it was two or three months ago, and there are one or two tangible signs of improvement such as the re-opening of major lines of communication which had been closed for a considerable period, like the eastern road between Rangoon and Mandalay. I am told that quite recently road barriers around Rangoon which have been there for a great many months have been removed. In general, there are some signs of increasing stability and the opening up and pacification of certain areas.
I have already referred to the support for Thakin Nu and his Government, which was expressed some months ago by the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. His Majesty's Government entirely share the view, and it is a happy coincidence that we are debating this subject when Thakin Nu himself is arriving in this country as the guest of His Majesty's Government for a short period. I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming him to England and of assuring him of our high regard for him. As the House knows, he was a signatory with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the Treaty in 1947, and since then his leadership and courage in extremely difficult conditions has been of inestimable value to his country. The relations between our two countries——

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I do not want to interrupt the design of the Minister's speech, but he says that this is

a Commonwealth loan. Why have certain Commonwealth nations held out, and will he say why they have held out?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain this matter in my own way. He should address himself to the other Commonwealth Governments if he wants to know what their motives were, and not to me.
We believe that Thakin Nu and his Government are fundamentally friendly to the Commonwealth and wish to have increasing and steady relations with it. We also are convinced that his Government wish to establish democratic methods in Burma, and therefore, we feel we should help them when we can. As the House knows, His Majesty's Government gave considerable help to Burma at the time of the transfer of power, and have since forgiven some of the money which was then loaned. There has also been assistance given in various forms with a view to assisting in the maintenance of law and order, and I put it to the House that it was very much in our interests that, following on the recent improvements in condition, the Burma Government should have some breathing space in which to restore order. That is a prerequisite of any further rehabilitation.
I would emphasise in that connection that as new areas become pacified and opened up to normal trade, the financial operations of the Burma Government for restoring damage automatically increase. Therefore, they have at the moment increased responsibility in the financial field as a result of the improvements in the situation with regard to law and order. We believe that this loan will assist them in tackling this task in the coming months.
The only stipulation which appears in the loan agreement as to the use to which the loan shall be put is that it shall be for internal expenditure. The Government of Burma have a discretion within that wide phrase as to how it shall be used. We visualise that it might be used for such services as the payment of the police and troops, for restoring communications or essential matters of that kind. The Minister of Finance of Burma has assured us that it will be used with the utmost care. The manner in which the Burmese have recently been conducting their finances entitles us to think that the


money will be used with care, because for some months past they have been pursuing a highly selective policy of austerity in regard to their expenditure. All the Commonwealth Governments contributing to this loan have agreed to make the loan in this form and without any more detailed conditions.
We hope that the friendly relations which a joint loan on this basis should promote will also bring benefit to British interests in Burma. The treatment of some of the British interests in that country up to date has frankly been disappointing, and if we have not sought to lay down any conditions in respect of them in connection with this loan, it is not because we do not feel concern on that account. It is because it is our view tht the future of British interests in Burma must depend upon the good faith and the stability of the Government of Burma.
We hope that the loan which we are now proposing will contribute to that stability, and I think we are entitled to remind our Burmese friends in return of their obligations to us. We do not regard this loan primarily or indeed at all as a commercial deal. We regard it rather as a co-operative contribution on the part of the Commonwealth towards objectives which all of us share with the Government of Burma. We feel certain that the Government of Burma will regard it in this light, and will use it to promote those common ends. It is upon that ground that I commend it to the House.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On this side of the House we have regarded it as essential that a discussion should take place before the House approves the Motion which the Minister of State has moved. We had information that it was in the interests of the Commonwealth generally and naturally of the Government and people of Burma, that an early decision should be come to, but that did not in any way subtract from our view that an early Debate on this matter was essential. It is not the intention of the Opposition to divide the House on this Motion, but I want to make it clear on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we regard the responsibility for this transaction and its results as being the responsibility of His Majesty's Government.
In the absence of any more convincing statements which may be made later in the Debate, we are by no means clear that this loan in its results is likely to be effective. We realise that this is a Commonwealth Loan, and we respect the initiative taken by the various Commonwealth Governments concerned. We have been aware of the initiative taken by Mr. Spender in Australia and the part that the Australian as well as the other Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon have played in this matter.
We do not regard this—I hope I am correct in this—as part of what is known as the Spender plan, but it is an integral part, as we see it, of the approach which should be made, and which in our view should have been made earlier, to the problems of South-East Asia as a whole. It is, in fact, to use an expression used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), a "curtain raiser" to further big developments, of which we are just seeing the start in the whole realm of South-East Asia. Before the curtain is raised it is, in the view of my, right hon. and hon. Friends, essential to express frankly any doubts and anxieties which may exist in our minds.
Before I come to express some of these I should like to say that we realise that the situation in Burma must be seen against the background of the whole Far Eastern and South-East Asian position. I would emphasise that it has been our wish to debate the whole of this question long since, and that it has only been owing to circumstances quite beyond our control that the Debate has not been possible. I wish further to stress that the Opposition desire at an early date to have a debate on South-East Asia and on the problems connected with Far Eastern policy. It may even be that had such a debate taken place at an earlier date it would have put the whole of this discussion today in a better perspective.
While we have intense uneasiness about the probable effectiveness of a loan, our decision today not to oppose it by a vote springs from a desire not to take any action which might be misrepresented at a time when the policy of the United States is moving towards positive action in the Far Eastern and East-Asian area. I should like in this


connection to welcome Mr. Dean Acheson's statement, made in Paris, on the subject of help from the United States for Indo-China. This and other matters are subjects for the Debate which we have for so long wanted to hold on these subjects. I would extend on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends a welcome to the American Secretary of State when he comes to this country. Many of us have studied with the closest interest his massive and important speeches, especially upon this part of the world. I remember his speech made on the Far West coast on 15th March, when he said, about American aid:
The aid we extend must be of a kind appropriate to the particular situation. It must be fitted into the responsibilities of others and it must be within the prudent capabilities of our resources.
I could not possibly find any better language to govern our consideration of any aid this country might give in any possible circumstances. In fact, we might well apply to this loan the three criteria used by Mr. Dean Acheson, and urge the Prime Minister when he replies to give us further assurances on a variety of subjects which I propose to raise. Let us take the first point set forth by Mr. Dean Acheson:
The aid we extend must be of a kind appropriate to the particular situation.
Here I address myself to the remarks of the Minister of State on the subject of the internal position of Burma. We have never had the slightest doubt about the gravity of that situation. We took part in a Debate upon some Supplementary Estimates on 23rd March last, and in one of those discussions I used these words:
I appeal to the Government, in regard to the granting of money which has been made and in regard to their future policy, so to conduct their attitude towards Burma, in company with the Commonwealth countries, that law and order, to which reference is made in this Supplementary Estimate, is re-established, and so that future aid we give, either from the British taxpayer or other sources, may be spent to the best possible advantage. It would be very wrong"—
I said at that date—
to allow these Estimates to pass without expressing the great anxiety we feel about the internal situation in the country, despite the aid of the Government and many other high-minded people to improve the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2243.]
The hon. Gentleman says that the situation is improving. It is true that our

latest information coincides with his that the Eastern Road between Rangoon and Mandalay has been reopened and that, from the point of view of the actual liberty of the Government to move about, there is slight improvement. No one in this House must be under any illusion that the situation in Burma internally is not extremely grave, that the communications are re-established and that there is not the utmost anxiety whether the present Administration will be able to cope with the problems in the Prome area or with the whole Communist menace which is at present threatening the country. There is the gravest possible doubt in our minds whether a Debate of this sort can show that a loan of this magnitude or type will be effective. There is a further doubt whether a process of financial aid with uncertain or no results can possibly continue at this pace.
For example, the Americans themselves have come to regret bitterly much of the money that was put, however honourably, into China, and from which there appeared in the end to be no reasonable dividend. We were in much the same position. I think it is legitimate to talk absolutely frankly during this Debate, and to look back upon the extent of the financial aid that we have hitherto granted to Burma. I calculate that the total help which we have given in all forms since the end of the war in 1945 is about £72 million.
A vote of credit to the end of the year 1945–46 amounted to about £12.81 million. A loan in 1946–47 amounted to about £30 million. British military expenditure before the establishment of civil government amounted to about £15.5 million. An item for Army and Civil Supply Stores for which no payment was made amounted to £8.7 million. Some military, naval and air force equipment handed over under the defence agreement amounted to £5 million. Those sums amount to a total of about £72 million. I should like to remind the House that of item two, the loan of 1946–47, £15 million has been absolutely waived. The third item, military expenditure before the establishment of civil government, has equally been waived entirely. The last item, for military, naval and air force equipment handed over under the Defence Agreement, has also been waived. Therefore, a sum of £35.5 million has been donated by this hard-pressed


country to Burma. I calculate that a sum of about £1.1 million has so far been repaid out of this total, and that in future we have to look forward to payments of 20 equal yearly instalments from 1952, with no interest.
In face of these massive figures it is not surprising that there is a considerable reaction of opinion, not only on this side of the House but in the country as a whole, whether—to go back to Mr. Acheson's own expression—we are conducting these financial matters within the capabilities of our own resources. The British taxpayer is already the most heavily burdened in the world. We heard in the course of the financial discussion which we had recently that 43.5 per cent of the national income of this country is taken away in taxation. I think it is legitimate occasionally to mention the poor British taxpayer. At any rate, this British House of Commons exists to ventilate the feelings of the ordinary man every time.
The taxpayer, the citizen of this country, has noted with the utmost regret Burma's decision to leave the Commonwealth. At the same time he—or she—notes the numerous requests from our own family overseas for help. Take for example Colonial development and welfare It would be possible at any time to transmit more money to that excellent and desirable object, but at present we have to say that we are unable to afford to help our own family overseas. I must press upon His Majesty's Administration the fact that there are very strong views that the process of giving money to Burma without adequate results must finally come to an end, unless we find that the results are more satisfactory than those we have seen hitherto.
However, we have further political, or, rather, I would say, in the immediate subject which I am going to raise, moral anxieties. All the information at our disposal shows that the relations between the Burma Government and the Karens are as strained and tragic as ever, and I must say that we were bitterly disappointed when the hon. Gentleman made no reference to this subject in moving this Motion. There are in this country strong feelings of affection and loyalty towards the Karens. We remember their gallant service on our side during the war

which is, frankly, more than one can say of a great many people in that area. We know of their affinity with us in the Christian religion.
We further reflect with shame upon our too ready agreement with the Government in their assurances given at the time of the negotiation of the Panglong Agreement. We were told at that time, I remember, that nothing but a junior Member of the Government would be sent to discuss the Panglong Agreement with the minorities in the hills and in the plains, but we were assured that that agreement would result in the protection of the minorities in Burma. We have been totally deceived both by the development of events and by the undertakings given at that time by His Majesty's Government.
I should like at this point to stress the respect which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House feel for Burmese nationalism. Many of us have had long and close associations with the Burmese people. No words of mine will be designed in any way to derogate from the desire of the Burmese people to be independent and to act independently, and no words of mine must take away from any admiration which I have felt and still feel for the Burmese people as a whole. But it is equally vital, if one is expressing one's belief in national development and national feeling, that there should be a responsibility for minorities and that the nationalism should not take on a totalitarian form.
The nature of the Karen problem is a very difficult one. We all know that in the plains the Karens mix freely with the Burmese themselves—they are, in fact, intermingled—and it is very difficult to get an easy solution of the problem, but I should like to welcome something that I have heard, namely, that Kareni representatives are in touch at the present time with the Burma Government. When the Prime Minister replies I hope he will give us some assurance that on the occasion of the discussion of this loan in Parliament there has been at least an attempt to bring these two parts of Burma and these two peoples of Burma more closely together. I trust that on the occasion of the visit of the Burmese Prime Minister, whom we on this side of the House welcome in this country and whom some of us hope to meet on the course of his


visit, discussions will take place with a view to achieving some alleviation of the Kareni problem.
I said that we had political and moral anxieties. We have also economic anxieties. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position in regard to British interests in Burma and said that it was, frankly, disappointing. I need hardly remind the House that Burma's prosperity depends upon the development of her natural resources. Taking the question of rice alone, a prosperous Burma producing the three million tons of rice she used to in the old days could substantially alleviate the whole feeding problem not only of India but of the South-East Asian region, and could also relieve the pressure on wheat supplies which is upsetting the whole balance of the world in this respect.
Burma must at the same time, for her own good, attract foreign capital. Indeed, when we look back on the period of Burma's prosperity of not so many years ago we see how much she depended upon British capital, enterprise and skill, and there is no disposition whatever on this side of the House to feel the least ashamed of our record in those glorious days of Burma's prosperity. There has since then been a melancholy story of the expropriation and decline of valuable assets in Burma and, further, we have every reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the Burma Government has interpreted the letter which was written by the present Prime Minister of Burma to our Prime Minister in London on 17th October, 1947. Mr. Thakin Nu there wrote:
The provisional Government of Burma agree that they will not take action which will prejudicially affect existing United Kingdom interests in Burma in the legitimate conduct of the businesses or professions in which they are engaged. The Provisional Government of Burma also agree that if convinced of the necessity of such action in any particular case they will consult with the Government of the United Kingdom in advance with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement.
The second paragraph of that letter deals with the problems that would follow on expropriation or acquisition in whole or in part of existing United Kingdom interests in Burma, and it says:
The Provisional Government will provide equitable compensation to the parties affected.

This was a letter exchanged between the present Prime Minister of Burma and the Prime Minister of this country.
I want to make it quite clear to the House that if any action is taken which is prejudicial, Mr. Thakin Nu has written here in this annexe to the Treaty of 1947 that proper consultation shall take place between the Government in Burma and the Government of the United Kingdom. I want to ask the Prime Minister to say if such consultation has taken place and if His Majesty's Government have done their best to look after British interests which we think have been so woefully neglected over these years.
What has in fact been happening in Burma is that the spirit of that agreement has not been carried out, and now we are asked to approve a loan and apparently to sit absolutely silent without expressing our views upon it. It is our view that an immediate consideration and settlement of outstanding claims should take place. I have in mind, for example, the forest assets which were taken over in 1948 and outstanding bills due by the State Agricultural Marketing Board since 1948 and many other matters. I have also in mind not only the interests of the large companies, because their past and their future is inextricably bound up with the prosperity of Burma, but also the need to look after the interests of small traders who have suffered terribly from the whole of this calamity in Burma.
I have a letter here from a small trader who says:
I can speak for other small traders. There were only about six of us in Burma. My own capital loss was £20,500. The assessors whittled this down by certain disallowances to £13,600. Of this I have received from the grant only £3,600.
That is typical of the grave losses sustained by those who were fortified and buoyed up by the statements made in the Treaty and letters annexed.
I therefore consider that the Government should give a more convincing answer than they have hitherto and give better assurances before we can possibly feel satisfied that this loan is going through in the right atmosphere. We believe that it would be possible, if the Government showed rather more determination than they have hitherto, to get proper understandings not only about the Karens but also about the whole position of our trade


and interests in Burma. It is certainly wrong for His Majesty's Government to let things slide and not so to conduct their negotiations as to ensure that the objectives that we have in mind are attained.
There is another suggestion which I have to make. It comes from our own experience as a country which has obtained considerable aid from America. Presumably, we are as proud a nation as any other, and we have been very glad to receive the aid which we have had from overseas. I want to suggest that just as there has been appointed an E.C.A. administrator for Europe a Commonwealth administrator should be appointed so that this loan may be satisfactorily expended. We have no desire to interfere with Burma's national sovereignty or independence. I only draw to the attention of the Burma Government the experience that we have readily agreed to in our own case in Europe.
As Mr. Acheson said, "Aid must be fitted into the responsibilities of others." There must be co-operation on the part of those who receive as well as those who give. I am quite ready to accept that the Burmese have shown considerable integrity and skill in the conduct of their finances, but I consider that the loan would be in much better hands if we could consider the kind of suggestion that we ourselves in Europe agreed to on the occasion of the aid that we have received.
It is in this spirit that our approach to the whole problem of South-East Asia must be made. The Opposition is in the gravest doubt whether our Debate today, or this loan, will of themselves satisfy the Burmese people or achieve the objectives we have in mind. We know that the avoidance of a complete collapse of all authority in Burma is a prime factor in Commonwealth policy, and it would be a bastion against that Soviet "Colonialism" and all the sinister threat which that word contains to Burmese nationalism and to the countries of South-East Asia.
Before I sit down, may I resume the general argument I have been putting: that we desire from the Prime Minister, when he replies, the assurances for which I have asked: First, that there shall be an honourable settlement with the

Karens; secondly, that internal conditions in Burma are fortified so as to reestablish authority and restore the confidence of foreign capital; and, thirdly, that the loan is administered as a joint responsibility of those who give and those who receive assistance.

Mr. Harold Davies: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him one question? I did not like to interrupt him before in view of his invariable courtesy in giving way. While I appreciate his suggestion about appointing somebody, as we have done in respect of E.C.A., does he not think that, by putting outsiders in Burma to watch over the expenditure of this loan, we should create the very thing we want to prevent, the suspicions of the Communist groups inside Burma?

Mr. Butler: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I would say in reply that in Europe many nations who are as proud of their national independence as Burma is, and some nations who even have Communists inside their borders, are perfectly ready to accept a system such as is arranged under the E.C.A. administration. This derogates in no way from national sovereignty and causes satisfaction to the American Congress and to the American people. It is a plan which might be helpful if organised on these lines.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I intend to intervene for only a few moments on this occasion. I agree with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that the time has come when we should have a much fuller statement with regard to the position in South-east Asia, and that this House should have a full opportunity of debating it. On this occasion, however, the matter before us is on a much narrower basis, namely, whether this House should approve of the agreement made already by India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia and ourselves to come to the assistance of Burma.
It is right that before we vote any money we should discuss our grievances, and I would find myself much more in agreement with all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman if this had been done through our own initiative and if it had been a matter merely between


Burma and the British Government. It is right that we should also call attention to the fact that there is a limit to the amount of assistance which this country can give to other countries in view of the difficult financial situation here at home. Every one of us will approve of what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the money which has been spent already in Burma. Be it always remembered that Burma would not be independent and free today but for the tremendous sacrifices that this country has made on her behalf, not merely in the money and material mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but in the tremendous loss of life and the sacrifices which the people of this country have made.
What has happened is that Burma, which is undoubtedly in difficulty—and has been in difficulty from the time she asked for her independence and this House and this country granted it—is anxious to try to establish a more stable Government. She has made her application, which has been listened to, not merely by this country but by her near neighbours—India, Pakistan and Ceylon. What pleases me much more is that instead of this being made an all-Asia matter, as it might well be, with all the consequences which might have arisen from that, we and Australia have been brought into this matter as a positive act of co-operation by members of the Commonwealth to come to the assistance of another country. This shows the kind of mutual feeling we have that the trials and tribulations of one are not to be considered as the concern only of that one, but that we are all ready to take our part.
Therefore, this agreement having been made by the countries of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Australia, I feel, without going fully into the matter, that in those circumstances this House has no option but to approve and welcome the agreement that has been made.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: I am delighted to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said and I can only echo his remarks that the whole House should be delighted to support this loan. I am sure that is the interpretation we are to put on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). It is a little

difficult always to understand the procedure of this House. On a previous occasion when we were debating a smaller loan for a limited purpose, it had to be made clear that the reason why the Conservatives were saying "No" was because they meant "Yes." On this occasion we understand that they will not say "No" because they are doubtful whether they mean "Yes." I hope the result of the discussion now taking place will remove any doubts that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have in mind.
I support what the right hon. Member has said with regard to the attitude and the approach of the Burma Government and its people towards British interests in Burma. Also I should like to say, as a Socialist, that we do not believe in expropriation or in near-expropriation and that it is only right and sensible that if you want foreign capital to be invested in your country you must afford reasonable facilities for the entrance and for the working of that capital. There is nothing which will more chill those who would be interested in assisting in this way—and this form of assistance is undoubtedly necessary in the case of Burma in addition to the assistance we are discussing now—than action which seems to be unjust with regard to the determination of the real values of the money and capital invested. I am glad, therefore, to be able to support what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and to remind him that the recent Parliamentary delegation in Burma said that on all sides and made it quite clear in that country that this was the joint view.
The right hon. Gentleman asked one important question which I hope I may be allowed to help him to answer. He asked, would this Debate and this loan satisfy Burma and our objectives in Burma? So far as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, there were one or two things he could have added to what he said to make this really satisfactory. It will have become quite clear to the whole House that there is no difference at all with regard to our objectives. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for British industry in Burma. Of course, the way to support British firms in Burma is to support


Burma, on which these British firms depend. He also mentioned support for the establishment of law and order, and an honourable settlement of the Karen question. We all share in those same objectives, but are we to achieve them by this somewhat half-hearted support for the present loan?
In my view it is not only the amount of the loan which is the important item; it is also the spirit which goes behind it. Nobody can say with regard to a loan of £3,750,000 that it can determine absolutely the course of events either for Burma, or for this country should the loan not be repaid. But the spirit that goes behind it, and what is said in this House and in this country, is of importance. Nothing impressed me more in Burma than the sensitivity which exists there for British public opinion. What is said in Paris, in New York and in other capitals is of almost no importance compared with what is said in London, in Britain, and in particular in this House, with regard to the affairs of Burma. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) always bears that in mind in making his remarks.
I hope, therefore, that in making this loan we can assure the people of Burma that there are no strings attached; that the reason why there are no strings attached is that we want to make this a token of our appreciation of what they have done—and they have done a tremendous amount in a short time in very difficult circumstances; that we want to make this evidence of our desire to co-operate with the people of Burma. We want to show them that we have the greatest respect for individual rights and for individuals who say that they want to paddle their own canoe, and that we believe that one of the reasons for fighting the last war was to set people free; that we have no objection whatsoever to people pursuing their lives in their own way, and that we only hope that they will co-operate with us as we would like to co-operate with them. It is for that reason that it is of fundamental importance that we should make it quite clear that with the loan go the best of our good wishes and that there are no conditions attached which would be unacceptable to any sovereign nation.
One further point which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman could have added to his speech to make the matter fully complete and to achieve, what I am sure he wanted to achieve, that this Debate and the loan should satisfy Burma and their objectives. He could have filled in some of the missing points with regard to the trouble between the Burmese and the Karens. We all, of course, want an honourable settlement. We all would be most glad if this problem could be solved, because then the other insurrections, in my view at all events, would quickly come to an end. If this problem cannot be solved it may very well be that the troubles which are already there and those which are beyond the border will grow and be magnified.
Surely, it is the view of everyone in this House that when one wants an honourable settlement to anything, the way to achieve it is by getting together round a table, leaving one's rifle outside and discussing matters as between man and man. That is something which the Prime Minister of Burma has endeavoured to do and has succeeded in doing on one occasion, but unfortunately without result, because such agreement as he was able to achieve was not carried out when those with whom he reached it returned to their own side.
It should be borne in mind by everyone of us here that the simple facts are that the Karen insurrection is an insurrection. If we have a difference of views between the two sides, as we do occasionally, we debate the matter through our appointed representatives and we abide by the conclusions of the majority. If there are differences of view between Burman and Karen, and there obviously are great difficulties and complex matters to be solved, then surely what we should concentrate upon is giving them our best wishes for a solution of those difficulties and inviting them to get round a table together to solve them. The prerequisite of getting round a table is, as I have said, to leave one's rifle outside and to get together and discuss the matter in a normal way.

Mr. Gammans: As the hon. Member is by implication blaming the Karens for this matter, would he say whether when he recently went to Burma he met the Karens or merely heard the side of the Government of Burma?

Mr. Diamond: I am not by implication blaming anybody. The whole point of what I am saying is that it is not for this country to try to settle the matter between two communities in a foreign country. We have the greatest goodwill towards the Karens and also towards the Burmans. We are parties to an agreement for the establishment of a union of Burma, and all the parties who partook in that agreement and who agreed to join in a union of Burma should, presumably, get together and discuss their differences, as they have done. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) does not believe that the right method of solving difficulties is by rebellion, and I am delighted to find that we are all agreed that the getting together for discussion is the sensible approach which we cannot but welcome. Once people have got together round the table, it is for them to sort out their difficulties.
I hope that we shall all bear these things in mind in making our speeches with regard to the affairs of Burma and that we will bear in mind particularly that the Burmese listen most carefully to every word which is said in this place. They are most anxious to achieve the goodwill, co-operation and respect of the people of this country. In view of what they have achieved within this short time and of the benefits which they have brought to their own people—bearing in mind the history of events and that when people achieve their freedom they have to learn how to practise it in their own way—I for one bear them the greatest possible goodwill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends in joining with the Commonwealth in putting forward this loan.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Wakefield: This is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addressing the House and I therefore ask for the indulgence of hon. Members. I shall not detain the House for long. The first point I should like to make is that it seems to me vain, idle and utterly valueless to debate, as is often done, the question of whether the grant of independence to Burma was a supreme act of statesmanship, the crown and consummation of our achievements in Burma, or a gross betrayal of faith. That is something which relates to the past. My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that the grant of independence

to Burma in 1947 was an Act of historic necessity. I think that in the circumstances of 1947 there was no practicable alternative. But what matters now is not the past, but the present and the future.
In relation to the future, the first question which I ask myself is this. Burma is a foreign republic. What obligations have we to a foreign republic? I suggest that we do have obligations to this foreign republic, obligations arising both from the past and from the future. Arising from the past, we have the obligation to ensure, as far as we are able to do so, that the achievements of our race in Burma over the greater part of a century are not wholly cast away. In regard to the future, we have the obligation to confirm and strengthen in its resistance to Communism any country, such as Burma, which we hope may be ranged in the struggle for world power with the forces of freedom.
Accepting that we have obligations to Burma, the problem arises of how we can fulfil them. That is a most difficult problem. It can be argued that political conditions should be attached to any loan we grant to the Burma Government; but that argument seems to ignore completely the natural viewpoint of the Burma Government themselves. Some hon. Members on both sides of this House had the privilege of enjoying a classical education at Haileybury. Those hon. Members—and others—will, no doubt, recall that when Zeus overcame Chronos and became king of Olympus he banished Prometheus to a distant peak in the Caucasus. He chained Prometheus to a rock and sent vultures to peck at his liver. But Prometheus was a philosopher and, in spite of the attacks on his liver, he gave expression to a very sage observation. These were the words which Æschylus put in his mouth,

which I will translate as follows:
Those who have newly come to power are always intractable to begin with.
That is true. We know how at school new prefects always throw their weight about and it takes a term or two of office before they find their balance. In the domestic government of this country, as of other countries, we see how parties newly come to power are sometimes, shall


we say, a little inconsiderate before the responsibilities of office mellow them.
We cannot be surprised, therefore, if the Burma Government should resent—in my view rightly and naturally resent—the attachment of political conditions to a financial arrangement such as this. I do not suggest that treasure should be ceaselessly poured into Burma without any conditions. The history of American ventures in China has shown how fatal and disastrous such a policy can be. How, then, can we help Burma? How can we fulfil our obligations to that country? Money is not enough, even if we could spare it in sufficient quantity. Ultimately—I repeat "ultimately"—I believe that we can only help Burma by the service of Britons to that country, by the help of industrialists and merchants in the development of the physical resources of the country, by the help, in administration, of British officers, impartial and competent. I know that if we offer those services now, such an offer would be refused. I know that; but that does not mean that such an offer will always be refused.
We know that responsibility does, in fact, mellow people who are called to power. Zeus, in the old story, eventually grew more tolerant and released Prometheus from that distant peak in the Caucasus. At school, prefects eventually cease to swagger about in the way they first did when given their powers. And even political parties new to power sometimes temper, in the course of time, the first fine careless rapture which inspired them when they first acquired power. Surely we may hope that the new rulers of Burma, rightly proud as they are now of their new position of authority, will in time become mellowed. In time: But there must first be a lapse of time; and, in the meantime, I suggest that the only reasonable course of action which this country can take in its relations with Burma is to show, in season and out of season, sympathy and goodwill.
I think, moreover, that this loan is an example of such goodwill. I regard it as a token of goodwill and I believe that the Burma Government will regard it as a token of goodwill. But if we take the view that this is not just a token payment, but represents something tangible

and substantial—the output of British brains and British hands—so much the better. It shows that our goodwill is not merely a matter of superficial sentiment, of fine words and phrases, but that it goes deeper, our goodwill is a matter of real substance and real significance.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am sure the House listened with interest and avidity to one of the most excellent maiden speeches which we have had the privilege of hearing—a speech which will do much to eradicate any misunderstanding there might be in Burma about the general feeling of the House concerning the prosperity of Burma. I hope that we shall frequently have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Wakefield) taking part in our deliberations and I am quite convinced that if his contributions are as constructive and valuable as his first contribution has been, he will do much to maintain the traditions of this honourable House.
In discussing this loan we should realise to the full the colossal task with which this young Burma Government has been confronted. The new constitution of Burma was an excellent document expressing a national resolve for unity in the Union of Burma and within it is clearly chiselled the fact that there will be no racial victimisation and that there is the desire for all races to live side by side. The new government is enthusiastic and energetic and, maybe, enthusiasm and energy do not always make up for lack of experience, but the Burma Government have courageously and to the best of their ability tackled economic affairs in agriculture, commerce and industry.
One of the outstanding problems which was created for the new government was that right away it decided to re-establish peasants on the land. It hoped to provide them with credit and to encourage thrift and it hoped to give to the P.V.O., a force estimated at one time as some 800,000, useful work after their period of service in the equivalent of what in Britain we called the Home Guard. It has all along aimed at trying to balance Burma's economy. This is a problem with which we are confronted in the whole of Asia and South-East Asia, and it is because of that that I join with hon. Gentlemen opposite in hoping that this


House will very soon have an opportunity for a full-dress Debate on the problems of the Far East and South-East Asia. It hopes to industrialise and eradicate some of the difficulties caused by having all its economic eggs in one basket and I, as I am sure would some hon. Members on the other side of the House, would like to pay tribute to the zeal displayed by Thakin Nu in his difficult position as Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, in this period of doubt mistrust grew up between the nationalists and the old officials who were in power. For that we British must take some of the blame. Little had been done by the British Administration to encourage Burmans to take over responsible administrative posts. I will give one or two examples. Of 20 departmental chiefs two only were Burmans; of seven divisional commissioners only two were Burmans, and they were merely "officiating." There were about 50 civil police officers above the rank of district superintendent, of whom only three were Burmans. The medical services were below strength when the new Government took over, and of 38 senior appointments 25 were vacant, while of the other appointments only three were filled by Burmans. Out of that grew a lack of belief in the British Government and a lack of confidence throughout Burma.
The job of creating a new country in what I might describe as a volcanic transition in the history of Asia was thrown on to the backs of young, very inexperienced Burmans. I maintain that they have made as good a job of re-creating Burma as have America and Britain in trying to create a Western Germany and a Western Europe. I maintain that they have made as good a job as, indeed better than, the Americans have made in Korea and Japan because they are trying to base their system on the realities of the nationalist movement in Burma whereas America is failing to observe that principle in the whole of the Far East. I consider that the investment of American arms in Bao Dai will in the not too distant future prove to be tragic for the whole history of Asia. This is not the occasion to develop that point, but I will do so with pleasure if I have the opportunity on another occasion.
As a parallel on which to base our criticism, let us look at much of the chaos

which we Britons and Americans have on our hands in many parts of the world, with all our skill, with our dollars, our technological knowledge, machinery and business men. Judging by that parallel I would say that the achievements of the young Burma Government was worthy of our trust and worthy of the demonstration of that trust which is illustrated by this loan.
I believe, although hon. Gentlemen opposite will probably not agree with me in this, that we have wasted time because British business men and British interests are suffering from Victorian nostalgia in the belief that they can rebuild Burma on the old business pattern. Those days have gone, and while none of us on either side of the House can give a complete answer, we should now be trying to cooperate with honest Asiatic nationalism to find a new pattern of business for negotiation and common trade at present. I hope that this loan will help.
It will take perhaps a generation for Burma to stand on her own feet. If the Opposition want to encourage the development of democracy in Burma I would say to them that their differences of opinion, as already illustrated by speeches that have been made on the other side of the House, are not conducive to bringing that about and to building that confidence in Burma which we all desire. I wish that the Opposition, before we have these full-dress Debates, would agree in their private party meetings about what they would say and what they would send out to the world, because already the division of opinion on the other side of the House has been shown.
I noticed the following in the "Statesman" of Calcutta, of 8th April:
Independent quarters share the official feeling that bright prospects are ahead"—
in Burma—
for the first time since the country became independent two years ago. … All quarters here are looking forwards to early restoration of surface communications between Rangoon and the interior. This restoration, and especially the re-opening of the Rangoon—Mandalay railway, will mean freer movement of goods inside the country with a resultant reduction in the cost of living.
According to the bank reports that we are now receiving from Burma it clearly appears that—and this is an extract from the report of the Union Bank of Burma—


The economic outlook for the future is governed to a large extent by political developments not only in our country and the rest of South-East Asia, but also throughout the world. Given a measure of internal security, the immediate task would be to rehabilitate the fields, the forests and the mines, which are the basic pillars of our economy. The long-term plan would be to introduce a fair measure of industrialisation in order to overcome the weaknesses inherent in a one-crop economy and to make for self-sufficiency in some respects.
I believe that this a constructive loan which will not be spent in the barren way in which the American loan which was handed over to China was spent and the way in which American aid to Bao Dai will be spent, but will help in promoting the peaceful affairs of the country and enable it to proceed to build up its economy so that people can live. I believe that it is a part of the Spender plan for South-East Asia, that we on both sides of the House will welcome the loan and that it will prove that we have been justified in our belief in the Burma Government.

4.49 p.m.

Brigadier Smyth: I suggest that in our consideration of this loan to Burma today we should examine it from the point of view not only of its giving us an opportunity of helping the Government of Burma to restore law and order and to stand on her own feet again, but also of benefiting the people of Burma. In our discussions on this subject we think all too little of the Burmese people. My background so far as Burma is concerned is entirely sentimental. My father lived the whole of his working life in Burma, and died there. My son was killed in action there. I myself took part in one of our big military disasters of the war, when we were overwhelmed by the first Japanese invasion and flung out of Burma. All we could say at that time to those Burma people, the Karens and other hill tribes, who remained loyal to us, was, "Don't worry, Britain always wins the last battle. When we come back the loyal element will be rewarded and the rebels will be punished." We were very wrong when we said things like that to those who helped us in those dark and tragic days, because the loyal element who assisted us are the very ones who have suffered, while the people who either took no part in assisting us at all, or worked actively against us, are the ones

who have flourished I feel very badly about it. I feel we still have a moral responsibility for those friends of ours in Burma who helped us, and who have come out of it extremely badly.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member how and why the Karens have suffered?

Brigadier Smyth: They have suffered because we have not supported them, and we are still not supporting them.

Mr. Sorensen.: In what way? Would the hon. and gallant Member say in what way we should support them at present?

Brigadier Smyth: By saying more about them in this House. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate for the Government could have helped them if he had only mentioned their names. They like to feel that they exist, and that we still regard them as our friends. As has been mentioned before, the people of Burma take a lot of notice of what is said in this House, and when a Government spokesman, in a Debate of this kind, does not mention them at all they do not regard it favourably.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member another question?

Brigadier Smyth: I have given way twice, and I think I should now be allowed to go on with my speech. I feel extremely badly about the people of Burma. Before the war they were a happy people. They may not have been happy in their work, because they are not terrific workers. In fact, the only time they get really hot and bothered is when they see a job approaching. Nevertheless, they were happy, and they were content that the British and Indians should do most of the work in their country before the war. There was law and order in the country, which is something we can be proud of having given them. Today, Burma is a very unhappy country. It is disunited and torn by strife, dacoity and banditry; it certainly cannot be argued that the freedom, or whatever we call it, that we have given to Burma has made life happier for their people.
The troubles which face Burma today cannot be solved by pouring more and more money into the country. We have tried doing that before. It is not merely a matter of money; it is what is to be


done with the money and how it is to be used. The object of the loan is, first of all, to restore law and order throughout the country and to help the people to produce more rice. If we do that we shall benefit other parts of the world and deal a blow at Communist infiltration. We might help Burma today by giving them the advice and assistance of British administrators who have spent many years in that country. They could be of the greatest assistance to a young Administration.
I remember very well an occasion when Lord Halifax, then Lord Irwin, was Viceroy of India, and he was in Calcutta watching a polo match between a British team and an Indian team. There was great communal feeling at the time, and whenever the Indian team did anything good the thousands who were watching the game roared their applause. But there was dead silence when the British team did anything at all. Playing back for the Indian team was a Britisher, and whenever he did anything good he got just as much applause as the three Indians who were playing with him in the team. I was very much impressed when Lord Halifax said to me, "That is the sort of thing I would like to see in India—a Britisher playing in an Indian team."
That is what I would like to see in Burma today. I would like to see some of our experienced British administrators going back to Burma, not as rulers of the country as they were before but as advisers and assistants. I have not given up all hope that the Burma Government will mellow with time, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, (Mr. Wakefield), who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I have not given up all hope that they will become so mellow that they will apply to come back once more into the haven of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) rather over-simplified the problem of Burma. He made the Karens sound like a collection of heroes who ought to have the right to run the entire country, and he made the Burmans sound like a lot of company directors who ought to be evicted. On mature reflection, I am sure he will agree that

that is a great over-simplification of the situation.
In listening to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who opened for the Opposition, my mind went back to the Second Reading of the Burma Independence Bill, when there was a very different atmosphere and when his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the speech; when the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was not present in the Chamber and his name could not be found in the Division lists that evening when his own party voted against the independence of Burma. So we must recognise straight away that the right hon. Gentleman himself has won something of a victory inside his own party of backwoodsmen. He has begun to make them realise something of the nature of the new Commonwealth which is developing; he has persuaded his right hon. Friend to keep silent on this occasion, and that is no mean achievement.
Of course, it was part of the price he had to pay for this concession—that his right hon. Friend would not speak this afternoon—that he himself, in his approach to this loan, should have to take up a rather meaner attitude than he would have liked; should have to make a lot of carping criticisms of this loan which ordinarily, as I know from his own very generous outlook on these problems, he would never dream of making at all, if he had not to concede something to his right hon. Friend to keep him quiet. That accounts for the extraordinary balancing from one foot to another as his speech developed. At one moment it seemed that he was a little bit against the loan. At another moment he was anxious to show that he was enthusiastically behind Dean Ache-son in giving £75 million to the Emperor Bao Dai of Indo-China; but it was another matter to give £3¾ million to Burma. He was able to gloss over the fact that we have supplied Western Germany with about £250 million since the end of the war, and goodness knows how much in Palestine. Nevertheless, any small contribution to Burma must be weighed, and weighed again, in the balance.
I particularly welcome this loan, because this is the first time that the Commonwealth, acting as a Commonwealth,


has taken joint action in the fight against Communism. This is a most welcome prelude to the Sydney Conference on the Spender plan. We may feel confident that, with this loan in the background, it will be easier to persuade the Commonwealth to go forward in taking greater steps in the economic development of the under-developed areas of South-East Asia.
It has been suggested that there should be certain conditions attached to this loan. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden talked of our relationship with America and said that we did not object to having an E.C.A. administrator for the Marshall Aid plan. In the first place, of course, the Marshall Aid loans are a trifle bigger than £6 million, and one might reasonably expect an administrator under those circumstances. In the second place, and this is the great difference, we in Europe are old and established nations. America won her independence from us: we did not win our independence from America. Therefore, the whole psychological climate is entirely different. It is quite another matter for us to say to Burma that we must put an administrator of the loan into Burma and apply certain conditions. That is different from America requiring certain supervision over the outgoing payments to old and established countries.
Whether one likes it or not, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable, if any conditions of any sort were attached to this loan, so extreme is the nationalist feeling in Burma today that the loan would be rejected.

Mr. Erroll: Are we pressing the loan on Burma, or did she suggest it?

Mr. Wyatt: I intend to suggest, if the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of waiting, that it is much more to our advantage that Burma should take the loan than it is to Burma's advantage. I see that the educative process begun by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden has not yet penetrated very far into the ranks of the Conservative Party. He has made a good beginning, but there are still many tough ones behind him.
If the Government of Burma were to fall, there would be no alternative to it but some form of Communism. That is an absolutely inescapable fact. There is no opposition whatever to the governing party in Burma except for the Communists and P.V.O.s, who are near-Communist in their attitude. I am sure that hon. Members have studied the map before discussing this subject this afternoon, but for those who have not had time, I would remind hon. Members that Siam and Malaya are, broadly speaking, on one side of Burma, and India and Pakistan are on the other side. China is directly to the north. It is clear that if the Communist advance from China is to be held, then Burma must present an orderly front to the Chinese border. It certainly would not be possible to meet a full-scale onslaught from China, but it is essential that conditions inside Burma should not be so chaotic that it would be easy to infiltrate Chinese Communists over the border in response to some faked appeal from some local Communist so-called Government set-up in Burma. It is important to keep that frontier tidy.
If the Communists once gained control of Burma, it would then become impossible to maintain Malaya and increasingly difficult for the present Governments of India and Pakistan to remain in the saddle, because infiltration of active Communism from both sides would grow apace. The whole of our position in South-East Asia would crumble to nothing. The whole of the cold war against Communism in South-East Asia would be lost before it began with any effort on our side, if we lost Burma. That is one reason why it is just as important for us that Burma should take the loan as it is important for Burma that she should take it from us. Burma needs this loan because of her post-war difficulties, and also because of the difficulties which arose out of the disorders.
I will not pretend that Burma is as well governed as Great Britain. [Interruption.] I hope we can encourage the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to join in this Debate a little later, and to explain his new views on the Empire about which he is toeing remarkably silent today. I remember well his remarks during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill which gave independence to Burma, when he said that the British Commonwealth


was running away as fast as the American Loan. He put Burma in the same category as India and Pakistan. He seemed to think that both those latter countries had wrongly vanished from our grasp because they were longer dominated by us. Indeed, if he had been our Prime Minister for the last five years, there would now be no British Commonwealth, because he would have destroyed it by his policy.

Mr. Churchill: I did not make public declarations, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I wished to liquidate the British Empire, nor other triumphant assertions that after a great many years "This is exactly what we have done."

Mr. Wyatt: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly made that statement. He took a great part in liquidating the British Empire and transforming it into the great new and voluntary British Commonwealth. The history books will show, perhaps, that this has been the greatest achievement of this Government, greater even than any of the great works of social security which we have been able to put through in this country. The fact is that we have transformed the British Empire into a great new Commonwealth which is with us voluntarily and which is not dominated by us.
The Burma Government, because of the disorders which have gone on throughout the country, have been obliged to call upon us for this loan so that they may meet certain payments to their officials and their Army. If they cannot meet these payments——

Mr. Churchill: In dealing with this question relating to the present Government having transformed the British Empire, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might perhaps reflect that they shed even more blood in the British Empire in their five years of reign than was shed by the whole of Great Britain and her Armies in the war.

Mr. Wyatt: There is a very simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman. If we had not done this, then far more blood would have been shed than has been shed. If he doubts me, let him look at the position in Indo-China where the French have carried through exactly the policy he would have wished us to carry

through in Burma; where they are pouring out French blood and French money; where the situation has become chaotic beyond belief; where the Americans do not really know how to make a start to try to repair the situation, and where the whole of Western policy in South-east Asia has been bedevilled by exactly the sort of policy that the right hon. Gentleman wanted in Burma.

Mr. Churchill: Four hundred thousand lives in India alone.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if we had insisted on maintaining that iron lid on top of India, there would have been so vast an explosion that it would have been a case of 4,000,000 lives not 400,000. I had hoped that his right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden had been able to work upon him during these last few years and had pointed out to him the error of his ways and had made him realise that, during the first few years after the war, every time he made a speech about the British Commonwealth he multiplied the enemies of this country. He was, in fact, doing as much harm to us in peace-time as the great good he did for us in war-time.

Mr. Churchill: I am not seeking any compliments from that quarter.

Mr. Wyatt: If we may return to the actual Debate, the money that we and the Commonwealth propose to lend to Burma will not in any way be wasted, because there have been great signs of improvement in the internal position of the country over the last year. A year ago, when I was in Burma, the road to Mandalay was closed. It was quite impassable. Today, it is open, and that is a substantial improvement. So is the road which runs north of Mandalay, which has never been closed. Today, the railways, which have not been running for a year are now running as far as Toungoo, which is a substantial way from the capital. The Communists have been driven into a small area around Prome and there has been a split between them and their guerrilla supporters of the P.V.O. The Karens are now right away from any town and hold no front whatever, having been driven into the hills.
I agree with those who say that the Karen problem is the key to the problem of law and order in Burma today. If


that problem were solved and the Karens were fighting on the side of the Government, there would be no internal problem in Burma. They would be able to deal with the Communists. But it is an immensely difficult problem, as all minority problems are. Unfortunately, it has been inflamed by some people from this country. There was the celebrated case of a Mr. Campbell, a "Daily Mail" correspondent, and a Colonel Tulloch, of Force 136, who went in for an extraordinary kind of schoolboy adventure in encouraging the Karens to believe that, if they started a revolt, they would get help from the City of London and that arms would be supplied from the same source. Of course, they have no business to say so, and British business men in Burma were bitterly against Campbell and Tulloch when the story was exposed. There is no question of British help for the Karens, even though they were made to think so.
A year ago, the offer was made to the Karens by the Burma Government of a fully autonomous state within the framework of the Union of Burma, and also of a safe-conduct to their homes for all those who had been engaged in the insurrection. Because there has been so much suspicion between the Burmans and the Karens, today that offer has never been accepted; and there are difficulties in the Karens giving up their arms because, certainly a year ago, I do not believe the Burma Government could have implemented that safe-conduct guarantee which was given by them. Today, I think the position may be different, and I hope very much that talks will be started between the Burmans and the Karens, and that they will at last realise that co-operation between the two communities is of advantage to both.
Certainly, from my conversations with the Burma Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet, I am quite satisfied of their good faith when they offer these guarantees to the Karens, and they certainly have not in any way betrayed their word to the other hill tribes. The other hill tribes had a similar guarantee of a semi-autonomous State, and the arrangement has worked well. There is no dissatisfaction among the other hill tribes with the Government. That is shown by the voluntary request of the Chins and the Kachins and Karennis to

assist in restoring order. They are now being armed to some extent and formed into regiments to help the Burma Government. Obviously, therefore, the other hill tribes feel no uneasiness on the score of co-operation with the Government.
There are other signs of improvement in Burma. There is the much greater willingness of the Burmans to co-operate with the Military Mission than was the case a year ago. There is a feeling of greater confidence so far as the British and their intentions are concerned. There is better co-operation with British business interests, and a growing realisation in this newly nationalist state that, in fact, they cannot carry on without some form of assistance from the foreign business element. Recently, they have agreed to a double taxation arrangement between our two countries, and compensation is now being paid to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company and the Electric Supply Company has been taken over and is being compensated.

Mr. Erroll: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of fact? The Electric Supply Company has not been taken over, nor has compensation been paid to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Only a week ago, the Irrawaddy Company received the first instalment of £150,000 of agreed compensation of £300,000.

Mr. Erroll: rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I have been interrupted quite a lot, and I have not much more to say.
So far as rice is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden said that once upon a time Burma was able to export three million tons of rice a year. Of course, that was true before the war, but Burma has been ravaged twice by two armies during the last war, and it has not fully recovered and it would be unreasonable to expect that her production should already be as high as it was before the war.

Mr. Churchill: Which two armies?

Mr. Wyatt: The British Army and the Japanese.

Mr. Churchill: I deny that the British Army ravaged Burma.

Mr. Wyatt: The right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister at the time, and, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, tremendous blowings up and explosive destructions took place in Burma in order to deny the country to the enemy. That was an official policy, and it was perfectly correct. I have never stated that the British Army was wrong to deny the ground to the enemy, and, so far as that was done, it was perfectly correct.

Mr. Churchill: It is an insult to the British Army to put it on the level of the Japanese invaders and to say that it ravaged Burma, when it rescued Burma.

Mr. Wyatt: I was only trying to state the objective fact that two armies ravaged Burma. It is in the nature of war that armies fighting over a territory ravage it, and there seems to me to be nothing insulting to the British Army in saying so. I fully agree that the British Army did recapture Burma, and it was certainly not the American Army that did it, although much praise has been bestowed on Americans for doing something which, in fact, the British did.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman do himself justice, as well as the British Army, which takes precedence over him in this matter, by agreeing that the fault is in his use of the word "ravaged"? Burma was not ravaged by the British Army, which carried out a policy of destruction. They had nothing against the population, but only attempted to deny to the enemy certain facilities. There is all the difference between that and the use of the word "ravaged."

Mr. Wyatt: I do not mind whether we use the words "damage," "ravage" or "destroy." I was not talking about the population, anyway; I was talking about the ground.

Mr. Churchill: What I object to is the Japanese Army, which invaded the country, being placed on the same level with the British Army, which rescued it and liberated the people.

Mr. Wyatt: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has been so disturbed by my strictures on his earlier attitude towards the Commonwealth that he is now allowing himself to join in a ridiculous argument about whether armies ravaged Burma. I suppose I should be putting

the Japanese and British Armies on the same footing if I said that they both used rifles.
So far as rice is concerned, last year the Burma Government were able to export a million and a quarter tons of rice, despite the fact that disorders had been taking place in the country. This year, the target is 900,000 tons, and they have already got out 850,000 tons. It looks as if they will reach a million tons, which does not seem to suggest any lack of stability on the part of the Burma Government. I believe also that this Government is genuinely anti-Communist, which wants to be a part of our sort of world rather than a part of the sort of world being created by Russia in China today. It is because of that that Burma has come to us for assistance, and, despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made so many inflammatory speeches against her, she still wishes to have our friendship. As a result of that, she feels that her place is with us, and against the Communist bloc.
I know it is quite true that the Burma T.U.C. has recently announced that it wants to join the World Federation of Trade Unions, but that action, I understand, has been thoroughly disapproved of by the majority of the Socialist Party, and there are talks now in progress to see if that decision cannot be overturned. It should also be remembered that the trade unions in Burma are extremely weak, and represent only a handful of people. Therefore, it is not really a serious thing that that should have happened.
The linchpin of our policy in South-East Asia is, I am sure, the country of Burma. If that falls, then the whole battle is lost to the Communists in South-East Asia. It is vital that we should assist Burma in every way we can, and we are fortunate that this Burman Government have learned from their experience, and are altogether more responsible than they were a year or two ago. When we have a Debate on South-East Asia, further consideration should be given to the question of whether this country should not urge upon the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth as a whole should serve notice on the Government of China to the effect that we will not tolerate any interference in the internal affairs of Burma; and that,


possibly, we would have to consider announcing a line in South-East Asia beyond which any action by the Communists in China would be considered an aggressive action against the whole British Commonwealth.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: If I listen to many more speeches from the benches opposite, I shall come to the conclusion that we ought to be grateful to Burma for taking the money from us. In fact, I am not sure that we should not be doing ourselves a very great benefit if we doubled, or even trebled, this loan. It is a new social situation in the world when one finds Father Christmas as a suppliant, begging people to take money from him.
Let us come down to stark realism. I understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary said towards the end of his speech that there is only one reason which really justifies this loan—the sincere belief of His Majesty's Government that it will save Burma from Communism. The country is already in a state of chaos, verging on complete collapse, and the argument is that unless we produce this money the hammer and sickle will fly over Rangoon. If that is the case, and if the granting of this loan will save Burma from Communism, then I think we shall be justified in giving it. That is really the only question we ought to discuss here today.
But what are the chances that a loan of this amount will succeed in that purpose? If I were asked to give odds on it, I would give 10 to I against its succeeding. We can only look at this transaction from the point of view of hard-boiled realism and not sentiment. Burma has gone out of the Commonwealth of her own free will, and, therefore, we must regard the question of this loan in the light of whether or not in our own interests, and in the interest of free countries throughout the world, Burma can, in fact, be saved from Communism. No one can accuse us of having lacked generosity towards Burma when, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, over £70 million of British taxpayers' money has been poured into Burma in one way or another since we left it.
I suggest it is time that this House became more jealous than it appears to

be of every penny which we spend, either at home or abroad. Let us realise that every penny we waste is money which we ought to be spending, but cannot spend, on something else. Look what we could have done with this £70 million within the Colonial Empire. Think of the schools, the irrigation schemes, and also of the universities and hospitals that need to be built in every part of Africa and the Colonial Empire, and of the great schemes we could have opened up in British Guiana and British Honduras with this money. Let us realise that if we waste this money on Burma, it is the people of this country and of the British Colonial Empire who will go short. We cannot hold the Empire together if we court those who spurn us, and treat with meanness those who are friends. Money will not save Burma any more than the Americans saved China by pouring untold millions into that country.
I suggest to the Government that there are three conditions which must surely be observed if Burma is to maintain her independence. The first is that there must be internal peace and security. We have been assured by several hon. Members opposite that conditions in Burma are now better. I sincerely hope that is correct, and that they will remain better. But I wonder how many hon. Members opposite have the faintest idea of what has happened in Burma during the last two years. There has been a strict censorship on the Press in Burma, and anyone who dared to criticise the Government of Burma was not allowed to send out his dispatches.
There has been a farce of a Government in Burma which controlled only Rangoon and odd places up country. It was like this Government controlling London and districts no farther south than Guildford and no farther north than St. Albans, and trying to maintain a precarious hold on, say, Manchester, with no communication by road or rail between these places. It is just as if the Scots, both in Scotland and the expatriate Scots in London, the Welsh and the people from Yorkshire were in revolt against the Central Government. Those have been the conditions in Burma, and to hear hon. Members opposite talking about the great progress made in the country's economic affairs in the past few years brings the whole thing to the verge of farce.
There is one thing about which I feel very strongly, and that is the Karens. I think all of us in this House should have a bad conscience about the Karens. They stood loyally by us in the war, and the point is that they never wanted to cease being British subjects. They only signed the Panglong Agreement when we made it perfectly clear that we were going to abandon them anyway, and they have been shockingly treated by the Burmese since that time. I wonder how many hon. Members in this House have ever heard of the massacre of the Karens when they were going to church on Christmas Day, 1948? That is one of the things that did not come out of Burma. Can we wonder that the Karens do not trust the Burmese today? The Prime Minister of Burma is over here to attend——

Mr. Wyatt: Has the hon. Gentleman been to Burma since she became independent, and, if not, how does he know that the facts which he has given us are true?

Mr. Gammans: Of course I know. I have many friends in Burma and many in the Far East. My source of information is not restricted to what appears in the "Daily Herald."
The Prime Minister of Burma is at present in this country to attend the Memorial Service at Westminster Abbey on Thursday. We are glad he has come, but what a travesty of the situation that at that Memorial Service to the British Army there will not be a single representative of the Karens present? It was they who stood by us and fought with us, and, surely, it is they who ought to be invited to a service of this sort?
Today in Malaya His Majesty's Government are lamenting the fact that the Chinese are reluctant to give assistance and information. Can they wonder at it after what happened in Burma? The Chinese are looking over their shoulders and saying, "Look what happened to the Karens who were loyal to you. You walked off and left them. Are you going to walk off and leave us in the same way?" That is the main reason why today the Government in Malaya cannot get the assistance they want. I contend that the first condition for saving Burma from Communism is that there must be peace and law and order within the country. The second condition is that the

standard of living must be maintained, and, if possible, raised.
But the outstanding feature of the present régime in Burma is that the standard of living has been lowered, not raised. Today Burma, of all countries in the world, is importing oil and Burma which, before the war exported between three million and four million tons of rice, now cannot export one million. Burma is being reduced to a bullock cart civilisation and the whole country is becoming a vast tropical slum. If Burma wants to save herself from Communism and raise her standard of living one of the things that obviously she must do, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said in his opening speech, is to accept the advice and help of outside capital. But who, in his right senses, would invest a penny in Burma today when we consider the way British assets have been treated in that country?
Surely the third way in which a country can resist Communism is that, if necessary, it must be prepared to resist it militarily. I believe one of the most dangerous fallacies in the world today is that one can prevent Communism coming into a country merely by economic means. What we have seen in Czechoslovakia, where we had a prosperous and democratic country over-run by Communism, should teach us that economic prosperity alone will not save a country from Communism if there is a military force outside determined to dominate it.
Before we dole out money like this we ought to ask ourselves whether Burma is prepared to come into any Pacific pact, any anti-Communist pact that we, the Commonwealth, and the United States might be able to form in the near future. It is obvious that she cannot defend herself by her own exertions. If so she should say what facilities she is prepared to give to the Commonwealth and the United States to help defend her. We in this country do not think it derogatory to our dignity and independence to give air bases to America. How shall we or anyone else be able to defend Burma if she is going to try and rely entirely on her own means? Those are the three conditions under which Burma can be saved from Communism.
When we consider those things, how puny and fantastic it is to think that this


loan can hope to save the country at all. I believe Burma to be in very grievous danger today. Recently, a treaty has been signed between the Kremlin and Peking, between Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin. Some of the clauses of that treaty have been published, but it would not be according to the pattern of a normal Soviet treaty if there are not secret clauses. I shall be very surprised if one of those secret clauses is not that China shall be allowed to invade Burma if she wishes to do so.
What a farce it is to pretend that a loan of £3½ million from this country can cope with a situation like that. What a travesty it is to suggest passing over this money without any conditions attached to it and without any attempt to get peace and order, without any attempt to raise the standard of living and without seeing that there are any military guarantees to defend the country! What nonsense it is to suggest that by so doing we can render Burma any real service. I suggest we say to the Burmese that, if they want any real sense of security and want their independence to be anything but the hollowest of hollow mockeries, the first thing they have to do is to make peace with the Karens. Secondly, they must stop expropriating outside assets and so restore the standard of living. Thirdly, they must enter into a real pact of friendship and alliance with those only countries upon whom in the end they can depend.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I am quite sure that some hon. Members on this side and perhaps some hon. Members on the other side of the House cannot but feel the contrast between the method and spirit of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Wakefield) who made his maiden speech about half an hour ago. It revealed to us that there are in the Conservative Party those who approach this matter constructively and sensitively and those who approach this very vital question in a very different and altogether more lamentable mood.
I suggest that we had better make up our minds what we are going to do. If we are going to extend this aid to Burma we might as well do it with goodwill and graciousness and not with a sneer. What is the alternative to the extension of this

very modest loan? What do we expect if we say we shall not give it? Do we imagine that is going to encourage the Government and people of Burma to greater appreciation of this country? Do we imagine that that kind of rejection is going to have a great beneficial influence in Pakistan and in India? Is it going to assist the Commonwealth, which, I beg to remind the House, now consists mainly of dark-skinned and not white-skinned peoples? I suggest that from the standpoint of our own self-interest, if we like, the best way in which we can encourage the continuation of the Commonwealth and its further integration is to recognise that this loan is needed by the Burmese people and that we should give it with graciousness, goodwill, friendship and understanding.
A few more speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Hornsey would do incalculable damage to future prospects of friendship between this country and Burma. As it is, we are accustomed to his approach and we understand it. I am happy that he does not represent the whole of the Conservative Party, as is evident from the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West and that of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I hope, despite what has been said by way of schizophrenic revelations of the Conservative Party, that very soon we are going to be told quite clearly that on this occasion all sides of the House are going to support this loan. I hope, as has been asserted elsewhere, we are going to prove that on matters of this kind we can rise above mere partisanship and prejudice.
It is quite true that Burma at present is in very dire straits economically and politically. Can we entirely blame the present Burma Government? Is it not true that it was not Burma that decided to enter into war? It is true our armies went there to prevent the Japanese who were invading. It is true we did so with the best of intentions, but the fact remains that Burma is politically and economically chaotic today largely because she was involved in a war she herself did not choose.

Mr. Gammans: Who did choose?

Mr. Sorensen: We chose to make war with the Japanese. I am not saying we should not have done so; that is not the point at all. The point is that whether


it was the Japanese or the British who decided to make war, it was certainly not the Burmese. They did not ask the Japanese to drop bombs on Pearl Harbour or for us to come and attack the Japanese. [Laughter.] The laughter of hon. Members opposite is a revelation that they know the Burmese were involved in war not through their original choice.
It was useful for us that we could utilise Burma as part of our defence against the Japanese. It is true that in the course of war great destruction has to be inflicted, as was done in Burma. The effect of that was felt by the Burmese, and when the war was over that was one of the factors then confronting the new Burma Government. It is equally true that the Burma Government were confronted with Communist uprisings. Again surely we are not going to blame the present Burma Government because there were, in fact, two Burma Communist armies attacking that Government.
As to the Karens, we all have sympathy with them, of course, but when we talk about the Karens suffering, we must face the fact that they are suffering today because they themselves have rebelled in association with the Communists. Therefore, if we are going to show sympathy to the Karens, which we should, we must be frank and honest and implore the Karens at this time to make their peace with the Burmese. Can any one suggest that the Burma Government have not offered the most generous terms of settlement? Is it not true that many Karens are now fighting with the Burma Government at the present time? Is there any Member present who, on examination of the facts, would not honestly say that it was wrong for the Karens to have taken up arms in association with the Communists in order to destroy the Burma Government?
In those circumstances, I cannot understand some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. I should have thought that they would have occupied their time better today in appealing to the Karens to recognise the damage they are doing to their own country. It is true that in the past the Karens fought with us, and the Burmese sometimes did and sometimes did not, but the fact is that in the end we recognised the right of Burma to please herself as to whether she remained

inside the Commonwealth or not, and we recognise the present Burma Government. In that case the right thing for us to do is to appeal to the Karens, with every sympathy and every appreciation of what they have done in the past, to recognise that they are injuring their own country by continuing this bitter civil strife.
So much has been said this afternoon about the Karens as a reason for holding back the loan, or at least only advancing it with all kinds of qualifications and conditions. I suggest that that is the wrong way to go about the rehabilitation of Burma. Burma is politically and economically chaotic today. On the other hand, it is equally true that Burma has enormous economic potentialities. Given the right opportunity, given proper capital investment, given a period of internal peace, I am convinced that the Burmese people in co-operation with others will be able to re-establish their country and make it an example of Eastern prosperity.
But I do plead that this loan shall not be extended to Burma merely in order to help her to fight Communism. I would put it on a higher plane than that. If there is squalour and misery, those are the conditions in which Communism breeds—we have seen it elsewhere—but I submit that a far better approach to this matter is not to extend the loan mainly, merely or exclusively in order to assist Burma to fight Communism, but because it is right for us to assist Burma, because we want friendship with Burma and because although Burma is now outside the Commonwealth, we still believe that she is our friend.
In that case I say, let us realise at this present time, when the whole world is apprehensive about the future, that we are not going to get out of this terrible and intimidating mood of fear by extending such aid as is necessary grudgingly and almost maliciously. We shall encourage a new spirit and a new alignment of forces only by being gracious and by extending such aid as we can with goodwill. The £3¾ million which has been asked for at the present time by Burma, spread over a considerable period if need be, is a very small part that we can play in assisting to rebuild Burma and make her some day not only a prosperous country but once again a happy country and, I hope for all time, a country friendly with ourselves.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I have often heard the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) speaking about the affairs of the East, and it has always seemed to me, as it has seemed to me today, that he relies very much on the sincerity of his thoughts and the hopes which he sincerely entertains for the fulfilment of his wishes. I think it is our duty today to consider this loan from the point of view of the object which the Government have told us about—that is, to strengthen Burma in the fight against Communism, to strengthen freedom in Burma—and to see whether this loan is going to achieve this purpose.
I sympathise with many of the hon. Gentleman's hopes and wishes, but I wish that he would sometimes direct his mind towards some of the practical problems. I, sometimes agree with him, and perhaps I am a little bit at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Just wait and see what it is, because the rest of my speech will support everything that my hon. Friend has said. I am a little bit at variance with him in his statement that we should forget about sentiment. I do not think that in dealing with the East we can forget about sentiment. That is one of the things I learned when I went there after the war, and I have always found this to be true whenever I have gone back to those parts, as I have, from time to time.
We have been told that this loan is for internal purposes. I should like the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to tell us whether that means that the sterling, which is placed presumably in the Burma Currency Board's hands in London, is going to be blocked. I ask that question because if the sterling is not blocked it can be used for external purposes and for buying goods from overseas.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): The equivalent amount of rupees will be paid to Burma, and they agree to use those rupees for internal purposes That is one of the terms of the agreement

Mr. Low: That has not quite answered my question. What I want to know is

whether they are going to be allowed to use this sterling freely. I am not saying now whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I want to know whether there is going to be an addition to what we call unrequited exports.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: They will not be receiving sterling. They will be receiving rupees from their Currency Board here.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to make the position more plain?

Mr. Low: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better clear up this point when he makes his speech at the end of the Debate. It is important that we should know whether the sterling is usable or not. If the sterling is blocked, then this loan will introduce into the economy of Burma an inflationary tendency, because it will produce more money with no goods for that extra money.
It is as well that we should have this point clear. If the sterling is not blocked but is free, then the loan is not just for internal purposes but can be used for external purposes. It really is as well that we should understand exactly what is happening. I have every reason to expect that we shall find that there is a sort of half-way house, that the sterling is not blocked but that it is not expected that the sterling will be used. If that is the situation, then this is just one more of those occasions when we in the country have parted with sterling for what I consider, and for what I believe the House considers, is a good reason.
Before I come to my next point I should like to ask this question. Is it not about time that this House considered the whole problem in our external aid in South-East Asia, including the release of sterling balances, which is a major part of this kind of aid to the countries of India and Pakistan in particular? Ought we not to consider this question of financial aid anew? We have never discussed the release of sterling balances, which has recently been justified, and which I think can be justified, on the grounds of international political influence. If that is its true justification, we should discuss this release and the policy behind it just as much as we are discussing this loan today.
If I understand this loan correctly, it is merely the forerunner of other loans which we shall be asked to make in accordance with the Spender plan, when that plan has been worked out and the countries gathered together at the conference in Australia have decided among themselves what they want to do and how much they can spare. I suggest to the Government that they should consider giving the House an opportunity of discussing the financial aspect, as well as the very important political, strategic and other economic aspects of the problems of South-East Asia, about which I hope we are to have a Debate in the very near future.
I was interested when the Minister of State, in his speech today, set this loan against the background of affairs in South-East Asia and I was also glad that mention was made of the military aid announced today for Indo-China. There seems to be a very grave difference of opinion on the Government Benches about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I studied the faces of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite when certain of their hon. Friends behind them were talking and I was really very depressed on their behalf.

Mr. Sorensen: Did the hon. Member also see the expression on the face of his own Leader, the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Low: Owing to the fact that my eyes are not boomerangs in vision, I am afraid I did not—but I think that for the time being I have made my point, as is shown by the alacrity with which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) leapt to his feet.
One of the most important parts of this loan arrangement which we ought to be considering, is how we can best make this small loan effective, bearing in mind, as I am sure we must bear in mind, that if it is to be of real use it has to be followed up. I emphasise that because it is important to my argument. Hon. Members opposite have stressed the fact that if conditions were attached to the loan, that would make it wholly unacceptable to the Burma Government, and one of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Wakefield), in what I thought was a most excellent maiden speech—if I may modestly say so

—pointed out that new governments, new peoples, are suspicious, indeed over-suspicious, particularly of those who have been looking after them in the past.
It may be that it is quite impossible to attach conditions to loans such as this, but I think it is right to say that if grown-up countries, such as our's, are prepared to accept conditions to their loans, then the time must soon come when countries in South-East Asia should also be prepared to accept conditions. I do not think that time has come yet, however, and we have, therefore, to consider what is the next best thing for us to do in order to see that this loan is effective—because that is our object—and also in order to see that, if it is effective, it can be followed up.
Though conditions may not be attached to the loan, I think the Burmese themselves would be wise to realise that if the objects sought by this country and the Commonwealth in giving this loan are not fulfilled, then that will seriously affect the prospect of further aid. It is for that reason that I believe we should seriously consider, in the Commonwealth, the appointment of one man or of a group of men in Rangoon as administrators of this loan, if only to see how the money is spent. They could report on behalf of the Commonwealth to the successor to the Colombo Conference on how the money has been spent—whether it has been spent well or spent badly.
I cast my mind back to the Debates which have been held in Congress in Washington about the European Aid Programme. One realises how interested other countries may be in money which they have loaned to us and it is also right that we should be interested in the disposal of money loaned to Burma, if only because we want to see that the purpose which we set ourselves is fulfilled. I hope, therefore, that the Government will think most seriously about the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, in his opening speech, that an administrator might be appointed.
Let me add to those points, support—if I may so put it—of the three points advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey as essential, in his opinion, to the strengthening of Burma against Communism. A lot of things have been said about the Karens. From time to


time, perhaps much too much is said about the rights of the Karens without modifying that with some of the things which have happened in the past two years and which, to my mind, have been a little wrong. That does not prevent it from being true that the Karens have been loyal to us and it is right that we in this country should still be interested in their future, as I think we are, on both sides of the House.
I think it is also true to say that the Burma Government have done something to see whether they could establish peace with the Karens but it remains the fact that, whoever is at fault, peace has not been established. It is in the interests of our objective—that Burma should be strengthened against Communism—that there should be peace between the Karens and the Burma Government as quickly as possible. I am sure we should like to know a little more about what is being done to achieve that.
Reference has also been made to the obligations of the Burma Government under the Treaty they signed and the letter attached towards British interests in Burma. To my mind it is very important that the Burma Government should honour those obligations. The Minister of State, quite rightly, said that the Burma Government had conducted their finance on strictly orthodox and correct lines, but it has been made much easier for them to do so because of the fact that they have not paid their just debts to a great many British firms. It is about time they began to do so, and in particular, in this connection, I would emphasise the two points mentioned by my right hon. Friend. It is also important that there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that there is no discrimination in Burma against British firms.
I was very glad to see, in the report of the Union Bank of Burma—the last paragraph of which was read by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies)—that importance is now attached by the Government of Burma and the Bank to the provision of foreign capital in Burma and also to arrangements for foreigners to run their businesses unimpeded by threats of expropriation. That is certainly an advance, and a substantial advance over the constitution of Burma itself, but we want to see that advance maintained.
The last point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey to which I attach great importance was that Burma should herself show that she is prepared to co-operate with other nations in the area against Communism. The idea of a South-East Asia plan, as it were, under the Spender plan, will not work if the only co-operation is that between the donor countries. There must also be cooperation between those countries who receive aid. I hope the Government will accept those points which I have advanced and the suggestions which I have made.
I would close on this note: I attach as much importance as did my right hon. Friend to the recognition and the strengthening of the nationalism in South-East Asia. I believe that as that spirit of nationalism grows, in a healthy way, the fight for independence will turn to the realisation of the importance of interdependence. It is right that we in this House should ask the Burmese to turn their attention a little more to the point of inter-dependence—inter-dependence with the Commonwealth and inter-dependence with the countries of Asia that lie on its borders in the south and east.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Unfortunately I was called away during part of the Debate, which is on a subject in which I am deeply interested. However, I heard the opening speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). Amongst the things he said was that the proposed loan might not be a success. I would not contradict him for a moment, but I would ask him this question. What would be the position if the loan were not given? The position of Burma is desperate. The position of the whole of South-East Asia is fairly bad. This loan seems to be necessary to keep Burma from collapsing completely.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) asked several questions—pertinent questions based on knowledge of Asia and Burma—and I cannot answer them. He pointed out several difficulties that lie ahead. I cannot tell him the solutions. However, I would point out that at the Colombo Conference recently the people who met there had complete and intimate knowledge of what was taking place in that part of the world,


Burma included, and that our own Foreign Secretary who is certainly a very practical man and a very able man was there. We had there people who knew the problem and knew the dangers ahead, and they decided that this Commonwealth loan was necessary for Burma.
I am perfectly certain they knew all the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and probably many more he has not mentioned, and yet they, in their wisdom, in full conference, decided that this loan should be made to Burma. I would ask hon. Members in all parts of the House not to go beyond that, but to trust not only our own Foreign Secretary but also the people from the several Governments of the Commonwealth who met at Colombo, and I would suggest that there is no use in our trying to undermine their work. All we can do is to agree with the wisdom of their conclusions.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden also suggested that something should be done in the way of sending out a commissioner to supervise the expenditure of the loan. He did not use the word "commissioner," but another hon. Member did. Again, I have no doubt whatever that the Colombo Conference considered that. Everyone who knows how administration is carried on in various parts of the world knows that it is necessary to have administrators who enjoy the trust of all those in the territories with which they are concerned. In the case of Burma there is a civil war raging, and theoretically it may be advisable to have an impartial commissioner from outside. I have no doubt that that was considered at the Colombo Conference, but it was not commended, apparently—although I have no inside information. In any case, how could one administrator, one man, supervise the expenditure of £3,750,000 in a country like Burma seething with unrest and civil war? I think we have to entrust the matter to the Burmese themselves. That is what they want, and we have to risk it.
There has been a great deal of talk about the Karens. The other tribes were not mentioned—merely the Karens. I have tried to follow the history of Burma since she became independent. I am not going to enter into the rights and wrongs of the dispute between the Karens and the Burmese. It is a pitiful story.

U Aung Song promised me that he would give his word to offer to the tribes the maximum amount of independence. As far as I can see, he did, but there was mutual distrust between the tribes and the Burmese, and this unfortunate civil war broke out. The only suggestion I can make is that, as they do not trust each other, possibly they would accept an impartial arbitrator to go in from outside, and possibly they would agree beforehand to accept his recommendations; or, if not one man, possibly two or three friends of Burma. All the right is not on the side of the Karens nor all the wrong, and we had better leave that internal matter for settlement by the Burmese themselves.
I should like to point out, even to the Burmese, that it was British troops who drove out the Japanese. It is true that the Burmese did not want to be dragged into the war, but they were dragged in because Japan was about to invade their country, and did invade their country, and it was British arms that saved the country. At the end of the war, when the Japanese had been expelled, the Burmese asked us to quit, and we quitted The Japanese would not have quitted, and Japanese rule would have been very different from that which we had in Burma before we quitted the country. So, the British Government quitted because the Burmese did not want us to stay, and since then, instead of bearing any malice towards the people of Burma the British Government have poured out enormous sums of money to help Burma to stand on her own feet.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden quoted figures—I have no doubt they are approximately correct, if not completely correct—£70 million in loans and gifts. I would suggest to the Burmese as a friend—I know they regard me as a friend of Burma—that there are very few countries in the world that would have behaved as magnanimously as Britain has behaved after the Burmese told us to quit. It was, incidentally, the biggest mistake the Burmese made to ask us to quit, as they now realise—to quit the greatest Commonwealth of free nations in the world, the British Commonwealth. I have many Burmese friends who will acknowledge that it was a frightful mistake. Despite that, the British Government have behaved with great generosity


and magnanimity in the interests of the Burmese, whom the British have always liked as a people, and also in the interests of the British themselves, whose interests in that part of the world are great, not merely commercially but also strategically. In fact, we have an agreement and a Treaty with Burma which I do not think has been referred to in this Debate.
So I would suggest to my Burmese friends, if my words may carry across the sea to them, that we are in this thing together, and that we are both faced with the greatest menace the world has ever been threatened with, and that is the menace of Communism. I would suggest to them that the Burmese cannot stand alone, and that they depend on us and also on our other allies, America, Australia, and the rest, I would suggest to them that they are in dire peril today, and that they should give up this narrow, nationalistic line of thought and parochial or "parish pump" way of thinking that as they own Burma they have all the rights as owners of Burma and no obligations. Every country in the world has obligations to every other country, and the Burmese have obligations. Even if they had not they would still be in dire peril, and would still need the help of the rest of the world.
So I would suggest to my Burmese friends that this loan is another gift from Britain, and I suggest that they should come into line with the other countries engaged in the defence of South-East Asia. I would suggest to them that the friendship of Britain is essential. As regards the loan itself I would suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the House that there is no question but that we should unanimously agree to the giving of the loan.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: I should like to associate myself with the last words of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the fact that Burma has had a difficult time. I think this was put very nicely in a letter I received from a Burmese clerk whom I know well but have not seen for many years. It was a letter which he wrote me shortly after the end of the war, in which he said:

I am longing and looking forward for you to come back to war-torn Burma where I have spent tough days.
Certainly they have been tough days—tough both for Asiatics and for Europeans, and I am afraid perhaps even tougher since the days of Burmese independence. Well, I did go back to Burma two months after their independence, and I remember arriving and hearing from my friends of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company that there had been some intimation by telephone that they were to be nationalised. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) said that this firm was receiving half of an agreed payment of £300,000 for their expropriation. Well, I have not heard that there was any agreed settlement. My information is that the claim of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, made as low as it possibly could be, was between £1 million and £1¼ million.
I should like to stress the British commercial interests. The Minister said today that he has had deep concern about the attitude of the Burma Government towards British interests. I went up to the oilfields in March, 1948, and saw the great activity: the fields were being rehabilitated, topping plant was in operation and petrol was being despatched. Unfortunately, it is the case—and I speak as a very great friend of Burma, both Burmans and Karens—that as a result of conditions in that country those activities had to be stopped in October, 1948. Thereafter there were negotiations between the Union Government of Burma and the Burmah Oil Comany so that there might be some joint venture. That did not get very far owing to the fact that the Union Government of Burma at that time were unable to put up the money. Thereafter—as we discussed here on 23rd March—the Government of the United Kingdom came forward and guaranteed up to a certain considerable sum the further expenditure by the Burmah Oil Company on the rehabilitation of their very important oilfields.
I heard then, and again this afternoon, that conditions in Burma are definitely improving; things are better everywhere, and that communications are opening up. I hope that is so, but despite that the decision was reached on 23rd December last that no further guarantee by the Government could be given to the Burmah Oil Company or the other oil companies


there for the continuation of re habilitating their oil fields. There is just one other point on the subject of the British commercial interests. It is the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has said, that the forests have been taken over and are being used by the Burma Government at the present time; while a certain sum of money is being paid to those British interests, it is relatively very little.
I do, with all sincerity, wonder against all that background whether the Treaty of Burma and the exchange of letters that went with it have been lived up to. I hope that I may join with my right hon. Friend in asking the Prime Minister to assure us that in future these things will be more closely observed. If each of us were today considering this sum of £3¼ million as if it were our own, would we be prepared to risk it in the manner that we are doing?
I believe nevertheless that we are right to do this. I am certain in my own mind that the good intentions of both sides of the House towards Burma since the end of the war are beyond doubt. But I do wonder—and the evidence is before me to see with my own eyes and in what I read, and what I hear from people who have come back from that country quite recently—whether some of those good intentions have not fallen upon slightly stony ground. Well, the ground is the Burmans'; the ball, so to speak, is in their court; and as a very sincere well-wisher of that country I hope that, with this further opportunity which is provided, they will grasp this nettle and that they will, as has been suggested—I hope it is correct—restore law and order. I hope that things are getting better, because I am certain that it is in the interests of all concerned, for our own country and Burma, that we should get back to the happy conditions which existed there before the war, and to the happy relations between our country and theirs.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Paton: At this stage in the Debate I do not propose to occupy the House for any length of time. Moreover, a large number of the points I wanted to make have already been made by my hon. Friends, and I do not want to weary the House. Nor do I wish to pursue the commercial matters which

were the subject of the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), important as they are. I want for a moment or two to turn to the rather wider considerations.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of this loan, and I am very glad that the House is going to agree to grant it without a Division, although perhaps with somewhat different feelings on the two sides of the House. I welcome this loan, not because of the amount involved, which is only £3¼ million so far as this country is concerned, but because it is a loan which represents for the first time, a joint cooperative act by the countries of the British Commonwealth in order to sustain and to build up the economy of a country in South-East Asia. Not the least important part of that co-operative effort by the countries of the British Commonwealth is that it is being taken part in by two Asiatic Dominions—the countries of India and Pakistan.
It therefore seems to me that the great value of this loan is not merely in the amount of money that is being put at the disposal of the Burma Government, but in the great moral support that she will feel as an Asiatic country in this practical expression of the sympathy and support, not only of the white peoples of the British Commonwealth but also of her Asiatic colleagues and friends nearby. That seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of the loan.
Of course, it has been obvious in this Debate, as it is obvious in many Debates in this House, that in this matter the Opposition speak with two very distinct and jarring voices. We had a quite magnificent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Wakefield); a speech which was sympathetic and understanding, which showed great insight and was founded, I think, on direct knowledge, and which deeply impressed the House. It was, I thought, a most statesmanlike utterance. It was the speech perhaps of what we might call the beneficent Dr. Jekyll of the Tory Party.
But then we had the jarring note from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), whose speech I thought, in every word that he uttered, was a extraordinary disservice to the common bonds and ideas which bind the British Commonwealth together. It was a most dangerous speech in the situation with


which we are confronted today. That is to some extent, I think, true of the speech of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who told us that although the Opposition were not going to oppose the loan they were only very tepidly going to support it, and that they desired to dissociate themselves from any possible consequences that may follow from the act.
Now if that is the sort of attitude and mind of the Opposition towards a very critical situation, involving the continued existence of a settled state in this critical point of South-East Asia——

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Settled?

Mr. Paton: I said, which involved the possibility of the continuance of a settled state in South-East Asia. If the right hon. Gentleman were less ready to interrupt but would listen a little more carefully perhaps he would find it unnecessary to make some of the interruptions he does make. I was pointing out that in this matter the Opposition are faced with a situation of extreme crisis affecting a point of great importance in what might be called the South-Eastern defences of the nations against the onward march of Communism. All we have got from the Opposition was this grudging, niggling assent to something which they did not dare to oppose, but which, at the same time, they could only in a luke-warm and sickly way venture to support. I say that this is an attitude completely unworthy of the Opposition in the British House of Commons in the world situation with which we are faced today.
I think that there was also too little said in the criticism offered, implied and expressed, about the nature of the Burma Government during the last few years. Far too little was said about the quite extraordinary difficulties which that Government have had to face—difficulties not of their own making. With a Government coming into power for the first time from a subject people who for many generations had been denied the opportunity of acquiring any skill in governmental administration; a subject people who for generations had been under our rule, thrown into this position at the end of the war in a country ravaged by war—in the use of the word "ravaged" I do

not expect there will be any difference of opinion—facing quite incredible difficulties, it is not surprising to me that in the few years in which they have had that immense responsibility they may have given evidence, here and there, of weakness and indecision in endeavouring to solve problems which would probably have tested any Government in the world.
Before we get too hypercritical about the failure of the Burma Government to restore order in Burma in the last few years, do not let us forget our own position in Malaya. We are in a similar tropical country and we have had, as we now know, to struggle for years against a handful of trained terrorists who are able to engage and keep engaged a great British Army with all its modern equipment because of the nature of the country and of the support which it gets from great sections of its own people. It is precisely that kind of situation that has been facing the Burma Government, except that in their case their real difficulty has been, of course, the insurrection by the Karen people against the Government of the centre—an insurrection of people of very great military quality and war-like character who would have given the greatest trouble to any Government to bring into subjection.
When tributes are paid to the past records of the Karens in this House, we are all prepared to share in them, but we must not forget that in this matter the Karen people are in insurrection and armed rebellion against the established and elected Government of their country. It ought not to be forgotten, either, that a good part of that trouble has been created, as, I think, was mentioned earlier in the Debate, by some of the ill-chosen advice given them by people of our own country, and I think that the revolt has been sustained by some of the expressions made use of in this House from time to time in Debates on their behalf.
I do not want to pursue that matter because I should have been glad if the Karens had not come into this Debate quite so prominently. I understand that there are now approaches between the Burma Government and the leaders of the Karens which promise a settlement which may get rid of the difficulty altogether, and it would obviously be a great disservice if any word uttered on either side of the House today caused


that attempt at agreement to break down. All of us, I am sure, whatever our differences may be, want to see the insurrection in Burma settled and the Burmese people once again united in a great effort to settle their economic problems.
I want to say a few words about the attitude of the Opposition. I think that the Opposition has to make up its mind how it will deal with a case like that confronting the Burma Government. They dislike the Burma Government not because it is a Burma Government but because it is a Burma Socialist Government. They dislike it because, as they have shown on many occasions in this House, it has been endeavouring to carry out a Socialist policy. I suggest to them that they must make up their minds. They take a certain view about the dangers of Communist advances all over South-East Asia. They are very anxious to stop that advance. Some of them, I think, hope that it can be stopped by force of arms, but there is, I know, the view held that it may be stopped by giving timely assistance in stabilising the economy of many of these South-East Asia countries and by raising the standard of life of their people.
I think that what they have forgotten is that we cannot succeed in stemming Communism in Burma or anywhere else by merely raising the standard of life, unless we can match the dynamics of the Communist Party with similar dynamics on our side. It is only when a Government like that of Thakin Nu attempts in Burma to apply the principles of great land reform and to bring under the control of the Burmese people themselves the essential economic resources of the country that we have the possibility of meeting the Communists on their own ground and beating them.
We cannot check Communism or contain it merely by pouring in dollars or pounds to sustain ancient tyrannies which the people of South-East Asia have made up their minds must go. We can only do it if we accept the new ideas of Thakin Nu and the Burma Government and make up our mind that here is a test case for us. If we want to contain Communism hon. Members opposite must not allow their hatred of Socialism to be the enemy of progress in Burma. I ask the Opposition, therefore, to try to think

clearly on these matters and to come to some clear line of policy with regard to them.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Enroll: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton), seemed to imply, in the concluding passages of his speech, that there had been tyranny in Burma before the war, whereas, of course, that was very far from being the case. An increasingly large measure of responsible self-government was conferred on the Burmese as fast as they could take it.

Mr. Paton: I never used any such word as "tyranny." I suggested that the Burmese people had been a subject people for generations.

Mr. Erroll: The Debate has revealed that on the benches opposite there is a considerable difference of opinion. Rarely have I seen a motion introduced with so little enthusiasm as that introduced today by the Minister of State. He almost seemed to apologise for the Motion he was bringing before the House, and perhaps that accounts for the excessive exuberance of hon. Members opposite during the Debate, as when the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) suggested that the Burmans had done a much better job in Burma than we and the United States had done in Europe. Obviously, the hon. Member for Leek has not studied present day affairs in Burma very closely, where not a single mine or large commercial plant is in operation, and where less than one-seventeenth of the territory is under the control of the officially-constituted Government. Then we had the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond), who has the smallest parliamentary majority among Members opposite, saying that the loan is a token of appreciation for what the Burmese have done. What have they done? Such exaggerations do their cause no good at all.
There has been much discussion about whether the loan should be granted on conditions, and the Minister of State made no reference at all to whether or not there should be conditions attaching.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Youngerindicated dissent.

Mr. Erroll: Perhaps the Minister would care to say what the conditions are.

Mr. Younger: I said that there were no detailed conditions, and I explained why.

Mr. Erroll: It is obvious, of course, that there should be no political conditions attaching, but surely there must be some economic conditions of a normal character attaching, such as the interest the loan has to bear and the date of redemption? These are certainly conditions we should expect to be applied.
In present circumstances, it is undesirable that there should be anything in the nature of detailed formal conditions to be worked out in connection with this loan, because that would only delay the matter much more and might result in a loan never reaching the Burma Government. However, we are entitled to say on either side that we intend to pursue our proper and legitimate objectives with the Burma Government, and that our granting of this loan, while it is proof of our good intentions, is equally proof of our intention to pursue what we believe to be the right objectives towards this young country, with whom we are in a very special relationship.
It is only fair to remind the House of the great amount we have already done for Burma since the war. Members opposite frequently speak as if the Burmese took over in 1945 and have had the sole responsibility for trying to restore commerce, communications and peace in the country. By 1947, under the aegis of the British authorities, communications had been largely restored, and there was law and order throughout the country. It was only when the Burmese themselves took over that the country slipped back into conditions approaching anarchy. No one is more glad than I to learn that there has been some small measure of improvement in the last few weeks.
We should make it quite plain that we have objectives that we believe should be pursued. We should make it plain that the restoration of law and order throughout the country must be the Government's first and main objective. I understand from what the Minister of State said that the money will be used in part in payment of police forces and military personnel.

Mr. Younger: I must make it clear that I gave that as an illustration. I was

very careful to say that apart from that it should be used for internal purposes. The actual details are in the discretion of the Burma Government.

Mr. Erroll: That, of course, follows if there is to be no detailed administration of the uses to which the loan is to be put.
A course of action which has been suggested by several Members on this side, which I think has much to commend itself, is that we should appoint an administrator. Further, if we are to see this money partly expended on military payments, we ought to remind the Burma Government of the presence of the British Military Mission in Rangoon. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) indicated that considerable use is being made of this Mission, but I can assure him that the exact reverse is the case. Since the Mission is there, it ought to be used to ensure that the limited military resources at the disposal of the Burma Government are used in the most effective and most useful manner possible. Why are the resources so limited? Alas, it is because it has been impossible, so far, for any settlement to be reached with the Karens, who, before the war, provided the backbone of Burma's military forces.
We ought to make plain once more to the Burma Government the great importance we attach to an early settlement of the Karen dispute, so that it will be possible to recruit the forces necessary to bring law and order to those parts of the country inhabited, not by the Karens, but by Communists, bands of outlaws, and ne'er-do-wells. We should insist on the proper protection of British assets, we should be protected, in particular, from the day-to-day looting that is continually taking place. The continual running down and depredation of these assets is a very serious drain on the capital wealth of Burma, capital which is almost entirely in British hands and represents the greatest hope for Burma in exploiting the considerable economic possibilities she possesses and to which other Members have referred.
We must also point out that it is no good Burma asking for foreign capital to enter the country if, at the same time, she pursues a policy of discrimination against foreign companies, particularly in regard to labour relations There are


some particularly discriminatory proceedings taking place at present in Rangoon against the Burmah Oil Company, and very unfair decisions have been made against other British companies operating in Burma, conditions so onerous that they make it questionable whether these companies can continue to operate in Burma at all. That is not the way to develop the resources of Burma for the benefit of the Burmese, or to encourage fresh drafts of foreign capital to enter the country.
There is no doubt that without this loan Burma can fall apart and become a centre of disintegration and anarchy, that she can become a centre of Communist infection throughout South-East Asia. It is, of course, in our interests to grant this loan, but it is still more in our interests to continue to pursue, by all the legitimate means of a friendly and fatherly Power, those objectives which we believe to be essential for the future strength and prosperity of Burma and which, I hope, will not be too far distant.

6.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I should like to begin by referring to the very remarkable maiden speech we have heard during the course of this Debate from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield). The speech he made represents entirely the views of the Government and of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. We echo everything which he said in an extremely statesmanlike and responsible speech.
This is an appropriate occasion for this Debate, partly because of the arrival in this country of the Prime Minister of Burma, to whom I should like to add my welcome, and partly because it coincides with the eve of the Sydney Conference. Both that Conference, which we regard of the very greatest importance, and this loan, which is an operation on a far smaller scale, are in consonance with our general policy in regard to South-East Asia. I think it is a travesty of my right hon. Friend's speech to say that he was being apologetic in presenting this loan to the House.
Our policy, and I do not think there is any disagreement on the two sides on this, is first of all to encourage independent States in South and South-East Asia, which involves taking all the measures

we can to resist the spread of Communism, because Soviet imperialism is a denial of the national independence of these states, and to create the stability and prosperity of the peoples in that part of the world. The Burmese could play an immense role in restoring stability and prosperity to that part of the world. If we could get the country's rice production anywhere near what it was before the war, a great many of the problems of that part of the world would be solved. This loan is a modest contribution towards achieving that end, and it seemed to me that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) quoted Mr. Dean Acheson's test—"You should make one test of a loan, if it is appropriate to the particular situation in question"—it seemed to justify this loan. It is intended as a temporary first-aid measure to strengthen the internal administration of Burma.
I might here try to deal with a point, and if I can make it clear, raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). The sterling will be made available to the Currency Board in London, and the Board will make rupees of the equivalent value available to the Burma Government. The Burma Government have agreed that they will spend these rupees on the internal needs of the country, such as the defence forces, roads and the other things mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, although there are no precise conditions laid down.

Mr. W. Fletcher: How is it possible for that money to be spent on roads and bridges, which call for the import of steel, if the Government are debarred from the purchase of these goods outside Burma?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: They are not debarred from the purchase of these goods, but in so far as they need them, they would use convertible currency which is at their disposal. This loan will be repayable in two years. The whole system of money will be reversed, with the rupees turned back into sterling. It has been made quite clear that the Burma Government have complete discretion on what they should spend it. No conditions have been attached, but interest and repayments have been covered in the


agreement. There are no political conditions beyond those which will be made in any such agreement as this.
Certain hon. Members suggested that we were wrong in not trying to attach conditions of a political nature to this loan. I am sure that that would be a very great mistake and inappropriate. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, pointed out that the nationalism of these new nations is a very sensitive plant and they can be easily affronted. The attachment of conditions of the sort suggested to this kind of loan would defeat the purpose of the loan. I would emphasise the point, which has not been mentioned much in this Debate, that this is a Commonwealth loan, and it would be very inappropriate to attach purely United Kingdom conditions to a co-operative Commonwealth effort in this field.
I should like to make it clear that this loan is a sign that we regard the Burma Government as a friendly Government and we are watching and hoping for a steady increase in the strength of the present Burma Government. That is implied in our loan. On both sides of the House, the question of British interests has been mentioned. We rest on the exchange of letters between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Burma in 1947 which are printed in the appendix to the Treaty. It is our hope and desire that the agreement implied in those letters shall be carried out in the full spirit. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there have been certain disturbing failures to carry out that agreement in its entirety. On the other hand, it cannot be forgotten that there have been extremely disturbing conditions in Burma which were not foreseen when that agreement was made. The reduction of the assets of British property there has been apparently due to the civil war which has been raging. It has destroyed some of them, and others have been cut off.
We have been glad to see that some progress has been made in paying compensation to the various British companies whose property has been expropriated. We have no objection to expropriation of British interests in Burma so long as proper compensation

is paid. If the Burma Government under their own sovereignty decide to expropriate British interests, our interest then is to see that appropriate compensation is paid, not to prevent the nationalisation of a particular undertaking. We have noted that the first instalment has been paid to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company. There has been great delay in paying that compensation and the amount so far paid has caused us considerable concern. We are watching the matter with concern.

Mr. Erroll: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the actual amount or dissatisfied with it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I said His Majesty's Government viewed both the amount and the delay with some concern.
We are glad to see recent official statements made by the Burma Government, realising the importance of attracting capital to that country, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) said, the best way to attract capital to a country is to treat the existing capital on reasonable conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] After that applause I should like to quote from a Conservative speaker during this Debate. He said it should be remembered that the effluxion of time is also very important in these matters, and it would be extremely foolhardy and shortsighted to try to rush things faster than is proper.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden gave certain figures of previous help given to Burma. His figures were absolutely accurate, as one would expect from him, but when he came to develop his argument he got himself into a certain contradiction. He first of all gave great support to the Spender plan; then in a different part of his speech he said that this loan was of doubtful value in that it would fall upon the poor British taxpayer, and it was extremely dangerous to spend money on anything other than British territory. If the line is taken that no burden must be put on the British taxpayer which involves expenditure outside British territory, the whole basis of the Spender plan is destroyed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote my speech at all, he should quote it accurately. I never said anything of the sort. I said the British taxpayer had many calls on his purse, and I allied this to what has been


spent in helping Burma, and I said that we should be satisfied that this extra help was justified.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am very glad to hear that. I thought that there was an unwonted echo of the "Daily Express" in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I was obviously wrong.

The question of the Karens has been raised on all sides of the House. I must first make it clear that this question is an internal one for Burma, and it is not right for us to interfere by speech and even more so by action in the internal affairs of another country. On the other hand, we all have a traditional and deep-seated respect and friendship for the Karen people. We are glad to see that the present Government of Burma has accepted the principle that there should be a Karen autonomous state, and that quite recently the regional autonomy commission, which will be charged with dealing with the problem, has met. It ought to be pointed out that the Karens are not the only minority in Burma, and all the other minorities are supporting the Government in these difficult times. That ought to be said as well as what has been said about the Karen people.

I do not think that there has been enough emphasis in the speeches delivered today on the Commonwealth character of this loan. Part of the Motion before the House recognises and welcomes the combination of this Government with the other Governments of the Commonwealth. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said that the responsibility for this loan was that of His Majesty's Government, and of course it is. We recognise it and accept it, but it is also the responsibility of a number of other Commonwealth Governments, and hon. Members like the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), before they make mischievous speeches such as he made today, should remember that on an occasion like this he is not only attacking this Government, which is a fair field, but also the Governments of other countries which have joined in this loan. Everything that he said was as much directed against those Governments as it was against His Majesty's Government in this country.

Mr. Gammans: I was not attacking the loan itself. I was merely suggesting that

there must be certain conditions in Burma before this loan was likely to achieve its object. Certainly I was not attacking any Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman did not think he was attacking any other Commonwealth Government, but his mischievous attack on this Government was an attack on every Commonwealth Government which took part in this loan. This loan is a very important example of constructive Commonwealth co-operation in a new field. It was discussed and finally settled at the Colombo Conference, when the Australian Government decided to join with the other Commonwealth Governments who had agreed to make this loan to Burma. We welcome very much that example by the Australians as well as their generous and practical recognition of their interests in this part of the world.
The reason why we have submitted this Motion to the House in this form is that there is a certain need for speed in settling these matters. There have been long negotiations with other Commonwealth countries concerned with this loan, and they are ready to pay their share of the various instalments that the Burmese Government will need. If we waited for the normal process of ratification it would take us beyond Whitsun and cause considerable delay. The money will be provided for in the Estimates of the Foreign Office, but we want authority, in effect, to make advance payments in anticipation of that. The reason why the question is put down in this way is because it will give us such authority.
I hope we can forget one or two unfortunate speeches and agree to this Motion unanimously with good will, remembering that it will bring encouragement to a part of the world where our interests are very deeply concerned and where our reputation stands higher than it ever did before.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government to combine with other Commonwealth countries in providing a loan for internal expenditure to the Government of the Union of Burma.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY OFFICERS (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Electricity (Commissioners and Others) (Compensation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, 1949, in the last Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Thomas Williams.]

6.53 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I know some of the gentlemen who may be beneficiaries under these Regulations, and I have no malice against any of them. At Question time today the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked one or two questions about the significance of lump sum payments, and whether lump sum payments did not attract taxation. I asked him a supplementary, and he seemed quite unaware of the fact that these Regulations were coming on tonight. I think we ought to be clear about these matters. The other day we were debating a Resolution about certain payments which were legal at the time when the contracts were entered into, but which retrospective legislation made illegal. Though I do not very much approve of these transactions, involving large sums of money, I oppose retrospective legislation. Here, we are not dealing with retrospective legislation but with a proposal to make payments to certain people.
These Regulations are not easy to understand, but there are references to lump sum payments to certain people and not to others. I want to know whether the Regulations contemplate that these people are to have, as a condition of their retirement, payments which are free of tax. Now we have a Minister who is in a position to reply, but we did not even have a Minister to move the Regulations to begin the Debate. There was some confusion on the matter. The Government were slow in acting. In fact, I had to prompt them and tell them what they ought to do. I want to know the significance of the Regulations and I hope that we shall have an adequate explanation. We ought to start a Debate on this very important subject so that the Government might make clear their position in regard to compensation to the people who have lost their jobs.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether we are to have a statement on this matter from the Government?

6.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Yes, Sir. The Regulations before us are in two parts: one part deals with the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. The other part deals with compensation to officers of the Electricity Commission. I ought to say that under Section 55 (2) of the Electricity Act it is mandatory upon the Minister to make these Regulations because these people are mentioned by name in that Act. As a matter of fact, during all the stages of the passage of the Bill Clause 55 (2) was never debated in any way. Apparently all sides of the House agreed that it would be necessary to make Regulations specifically for these two groups of persons.
In Part I, we deal with members of the Central Electricity Board and of the Electricity Commission. The Central Electricity Board had one full-time chairman and five part-time members. The chairman retired at the dissolution in accordance with an ad hoc arrangement in advance of dissolution. The five part-time members have no rights to pension or gratuity, so that their claims can be related only to loss of employment. We felt, therefore, that the limit that we have made, of three years' emoluments as a maximum, was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly in view of the conditions which are laid down in Part I. I will not weary the House by reading them, but will merely ask hon. Members to look at Regulation 1 (2), in (a), (b), (c) and (d), which lay lown a number of conditions that have to be satisfied. Three years' emoluments as the maximum I think hon. Members would agree is not an unreasonable attitude to take up.
Of the five part-time members, two died shortly after the dissolution of the Board. With the remaining three, the amount of unexpired period of office ranged from about 10 months to 2 years 8 months. Incidentally, in view of the conditions laid down in the Regulations it is germane to mention that these persons are elderly.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman has quoted paragraph 2. As I understand it, the consideration is not only the unexpired term but whether they might be expected to be re-appointed?

Mr. Robens: There are other considerations, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right. Some consideration is to be given as to whether they would be likely to be re-appointed and that is why I mentioned that they were elderly persons. I do not want at this stage to say whether they would or would not be appointed, but I just make the point that, being elderly persons, they would probably have less prospect of reappointment—I put it no greater than that—than if they had been younger persons.
I now turn to the Electricity Commissioners. There are three. One has already been made the chairman of an electricity board, one is retained by the Minister in a consultative capacity and one is a part-time member of an electricity board, so it will be seen that certain conditions as laid down in Part I (1, 2) have already been fulfilled in view of the fact that they are in some form of employment.
The second part of the Regulations deals with compensation to officers of the Electricity Commissioners. It might be useful if at this stage I were to say that 128 officers are involved. Of those officers 103 were transferred to the Ministry of Fuel and Power and are on the staff there at the present time, and the other 25 were transferred to the electricity industry. All those people are, therefore, in employment and in no case are they working under conditions or at emoluments worse than they had previously as officers of the Electricity Commission. These Regulations are thus merely a safeguard against what might happen to any of these persons in the future, and the safeguard which has been given to them under the Regulations is identical with the safeguard given to every other person of this standing in the electricity industry.
If, within 10 years, their position is worsened it is automatically deemed to have been as a result of the Act and therefore the onus of proof as to whether it was the operation of the Act which worsened their conditions lies with the electricity boards Thus these persons

are now no worse off and, indeed, no better off but in exactly the same position as any other officer of any undertaking which was taken over when the industry was nationalised.
When I say they are covered in the same way I ought at the same time to remind the House that we had a very long discussion—if my memory serves me right it was something like three hours—in this House on the Electricity Regulations in March of last year. I thought we dealt very extensively with those Regulations. Therefore, if what I say is true, that these Regulations put these officers in the same position as officers of electricity undertakings, as the House has already dealt with those Regulations and agreed them—I think it was agreed on a Division, but nevertheless the House did agree—it will be seen that in providing these Regulations we are treating everybody equitably and fairly. For those reasons I hope that the House will approve the Regulations.

7.5 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before I come to what I want to say I would correct the Parliamentary Secretary about one point on which he has laid stress tonight, and that is that he has safeguarded the people in this industry for 10 years to come because, as he put it, the onus is automatically on the Board to prove that somebody has not suffered. Perhaps he would care to refresh his memory by looking at the main Electricity Regulations where he will see that it is quite definitely laid down that it is up to the person lodging a claim to produce all the documentation to satisfy the Board that his claim lies.
He may also care to look at the Debates on 9th and 10th March, 1949, where he will again see that a great deal was said about the point as to how on earth, when all the documents have been lodged with the shareholders' representative and subsequently with the B.E.A., an unfortunate individual can get hold of those documents in order to submit them in support of his claim to the authorities, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the onus of proof is quite clearly laid for the next 10 years not on the Board but on the individual who tries to make his case. That is a very important distinction, particularly when we come to consider the many other matters


which the Parliamentary Secretary brushed aside so lightly in the few remarks he made.
These Regulations fall into two parts. One side deals with the Commissioners, using that word in the sense in which it is set out in the Order to cover both members of the Central Electricity Board and members of the Electricity Commission. The other deals with the officers of both bodies. They are very different. Again, the Parliamentary Secretary skated gracefully over most of these differences without advancing any justification for their introduction, but merely saying, in his usual hopeful manner, that the House would appreciate them and leaving it at that. I shall have to come back later to those differences and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he justifies them.
For a moment I want to try to emphasise what we have so often said, that the only thing that counts when we have a Regulation introducing compensation is that there should be nobody who can say that the compensation is unfair. It is no good advancing figures and saying that three people are elderly and that 100 or so have been taken into alternative employment or any of the other facile get-outs; what we have to do is to see that Regulations approved and passed by this House represent fair compensation no matter what test is applied to them.
It is no good taking the majority and saying that rough justice has been done. We have heard that often from the Ministry to which the hon. Gentleman belongs. They seem to pride themselves on having covered the vast generality and to think that if a few people happen to suffer it is just bad luck. This is much the same kind of principle as in the case of a person who has a piece of explosive in the slate which is termed "coal" and finds that his fireplace his disappeared. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that justice is never done by condoning injustice and that the only true test of justice is as I have stated. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member opposite wishes to challenge that, I hope he will speak later in the Debate. I believe that the Front Bench opposite, at any rate accept, that as a fairly good maxim of how this House should proceed.
Before the Socialist Government came into office we had some 40 Acts governing compensation. They covered from coroners to midwives and included big concerns like the London Passenger Transport Board, but in none of them has the House ever tried to limit or assess the compensation that should be paid to anyone. We have always taken the view—rightly, I think—that if we invade the sphere of private life and if because of what we happen to do in an Act of Parliament some people might suffer, it is not for us to try to judge or to assess that suffering; we should merely see that machinery is established which, quite independently of any view which we may take, can impartially assess that damage or loss and deal with it on the merits of the case. Only since the Socialists have come into office have we taken the line that now we can make regulations to try to limit compensation, to try to set down loss, and perhaps brush it all aside, and to say in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary which he has used so often, on the whole this will meet the case.
I suggest that whatever view we may take on this, the one thing we cannot do is to accept a statement of that kind on this matter. It is our job to see that where in the case of an Act like the one nationalising electricity there are cases which certainly in the next 10 years may prove hard, we set up some other body than ourselves to judge what that loss should be. How can the Parliamentary Secretary foretell what will happen in the next 10 years? He says that everybody has been taken into employment, but be cannot say that over 10 years that will be so.

Mr. Robens: If they lose their employment they will be covered by the Regulations.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Exactly, but I understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman to be that no one would come under these Regulations because everybody had been re-employed, and therefore it was a waste of time to argue——

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member should have this correctly. What I said was that everybody who had been an officer was now fully employed either by the Ministry of Fuel and Power or by the Electricity Authority, and therefore at


this stage there was no case for any compensation. I went on to say that if within 10 years any of those people lose then-jobs, provided it is not due to misconduct, they are automatically deemed to come within the terms of the Regulations, to have lost their job as a result of nationalisation, and will be compensated accordingly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to suggest that was not correct but when I reply, if later I have the permission of the House to do so, I will show that he has not yet read the Regulations about which he is talking.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I shall be only too grateful for any correction the Parliamentary Secretary may give me later on the interpretation I have made, and I will accept it, but I say now that his case falls to the ground for the following reasons. He is saying that everybody is in employment, therefore we need not worry at the moment, but that if, on the other hand, anybody should become unemployed then there are these Regulations. If the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the Regulations he will see that there is nothing to safeguard a man who is offered a worse job than the one he has and who is faced with the problem of accepting that worse job or submitting his case under these Regulations.

Mr. Robens: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not want to put this incorrectly. If there is any worsening of employment the man is compensated under the Regulations.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not got my point. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Paragraph 6 of the original Regulation, he will see that in assessing compensation account has to be taken of various things which include any other job the man may have been offered. As these Regulations stand, I must ask the House to think of the whole argument I have developed and not this one point—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh but if they cannot appreciate the argument I am sorry. It has been a fairly concise argument directed to one end only, and that is to show that under these Regulations a man can be penalised unless he accepts whatever decision the British Electricity Authority may care to make in his case.

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robensindicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Parliamentary Secretary disagrees he can contradict me when he replies, but I have read the Regulations—and I have quoted Paragraph 15 (1) and Paragraph 6—and that is the case I have tried to make out. Therefore I say that on two broad grounds of present injustice and of possible future injustice, these Regulations are inadequate.
Again, coming down to minor points, there is the question of the eight years qualifying period. We have still to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary why, for the first time, under a Socialist Government it has been thought necessary to introduce a qualifying period into Regulations such as these.

Mr. Robens: I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that six times already.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Then if he has, perhaps the hon. Member will be generous enough to tell me the seventh time.

Mr. Robens: I will refer him to HANSARD.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have HANSARD too, but I ask the hon. Member why it is thought necessary to have this qualifying period which is outside anything that has been the standard of this House previously. I would ask him again to remember that by this question of war service he is, in fact, saying that of two prospective entrants to the Industry the man who volunteered to go straight into the Forces when he was 18 will lose everything, but the man who waited for his call up and perhaps served only two weeks in the electricity industry will qualify for compensation. That is the kind of injustice that is being done under these Regulations. Over and above all these things, the Minister reserves the right to himself under Paragraph 6 (1, f) of the main Regulations to take consideration of other circumstances which he considers affect the case. It is that sort of over-riding power which makes these Regulations, which the Minister says are designed for the safety of the individual, a complete farce in many instances.
I come now to the second cause of our complaint, the difference between officers and members of the boards, and about this I hope the Parliamentary Secretary


will have something more to say. Why are members to be compensated by a lump sum whereas the officers can only draw between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the total award of compensation that may be made to them? On the one hand, the officers, who are the little men, will get an annuity on which they have to pay Income Tax; on the other hand, the Commissioners, who are the big boys, will get a lump sum on which no Income Tax is paid. That seems to me a slightly extraordinary state of affairs for a Socialist Government, particularly a Government which is so hot against Mr. Lord and Sir John Black. Yet here they are, under their own Regulations, doing exactly the same thing, promoting the tax-free grant of a lump sum compensation.
I have talked about the qualifying period. The officers, the small men, must be in for eight years; the Commissioners need have no qualifying period. Even if, for the purposes of argument, a man has only a week's service, he can still draw up to the full sum of three years. The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to remind us of our previous discussions. How hot he was that nobody should be compensated for doing nothing. We have had a great many arguments on previous occasions as to what constituted sufficient time in a specific job to justify compensation. We have accused the Government on many occasion of having broken the promise they gave in regard to the electricity industry, particularly that given by the present Minister of Defence when he gave the undertaking that
… if there are any directors, as no doubt there are, of undertakings who occupy a fair part of their time. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1421.]
they would be compensated. The Minister was in the unfortunate position, in view of that undertaking, of having to come down and say, "We now interpret that as meaning 30 hours a week." Indeed that is still the interpretation as far as the officers of these two bodies are concerned. But not so the Commissioners. They need never have been through their offices at all under the terms of the Regulations, yet at the same time they would be entitled to draw full compensation.
Again, it was laid down for the directors and officers of private companies

under the main regulations that they had to be restricted as to other work which they had undertaken, that if the Electricity Board said, "It may have been that you were working 30 hours a week but at the same time you were accepting other emoluments from other interests," they could then say to a man that he should have either no compensation or a very much lesser amount. But this does not apply to the Commissioners; there are no such restrictions against them. They could have been indulging in other occupations and earning two or three times as much as they received as Electricity Commissioners, and still they would be entitled to full compensation under these regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary was often most vehement about the iniquity of compensating people for more than £4,000 a year, but this does not apply to the Commissioners.

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robens indicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Parliamentary Secretary can show me anything in the Regulations which stipulates that the £4,000 limit applies to the Commissioners, I should be very grateful. It applies to the officers, I agree, but not to the Commissioners. We have now, therefore, this wonderful privileged body of people who have been introduced by the Government. I must admit that many of the things which have been done for the Commissioners we should welcome, but what we cannot understand, in view of all the statements by the Government about fair shares and the rest, is that they still are penalising the small people, the clerks and so on in the offices, while the Commissioners are allowed to get away with all these things.
Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the lot is that if a clerk makes an appeal for compensation the Electricity Board may say, "This is our estimate of what that compensation shall be," and their decision is final; that clerk has no appeal whatsoever. But not so one of the Commissioners. If hon. Members will look at the Regulations, they will see that a special tribunal is to be set up whose sole job is to decide any appeal which a Commissioner may make. What a difference there is between the people at the top of this particular section of the industry and those who serve it in lesser capacities.
I feel that there is only one reason for this differentiation. It is not because the Government have a soft place in their hearts for these Commissioners but because they want to set a line of conduct which is to apply to people who are appointed by the Government—that "Where private industries are concerned, no restrictions are too bad." But when Government bodies are concerned, we have to accept a very different standard, Then, nothing is too good for those people who go on to nationalised boards. They can have the cake with the icing, whereas the unfortunate people in private industry and who built it up are to be penalised on every single occasion.
Of the many Regulations which we have had before the House, very few have so little justification as these which we are now considering, either in terms of equity or, above all, in terms of equity between the various sections of people which they cover. These are Regulations which safeguard the man at the top, but they leave the man at the bottom under every disadvantage that can be conceived.

7.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was not quite sure to what final conclusion the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) would lead, but the hon. and gallant Member referred to one aspect on which, I think, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary might provide some further enlightenment. These Regulations form part of a general structure of compensation for loss of office and emoluments. In this connection, I put a Question the other day to the Lord President of the Council, from which it is apparent that up to 31st March something like £600,000 has been paid by the nationalised industries for loss of employment and emoluments. It is, of course, quite impossible for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House any idea of how much expenditure these Regulations which he is now asking us to approve will involve from the Exchequer.
The second point, which, I submit, is of some importance, is, to what extent do these compensation payments by nationalised industries attract Income

Tax? In a Question which I put this afternoon to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend said, in his reply, that in some cases these payments were subject to Income Tax and that in other cases they were not. If, as the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest has pointed out, two categories of payments are now under consideration—one, payments which are subject to Income Tax, and the other, payments which are not subject to tax—then I think that the House is entitled to ask for the same treatment in all cases.
I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me when I submit that all payments whether in the form of lump sums, annuities or anything else which are paid by nationalised industries to persons who were entitled to some form of compensation ought to be subject to Income Tax. If the hon. and gallant Member will take up that line perhaps he will find in me an unexpected supporter; but he did not make that point very clear, and I hope that subsequent speakers from his side of the House will follow the line that there should be no class distinction as far as liability to Income Tax is concerned. All these people who receive payments by way of compensation should be subject to tax.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to set a good example to the other nationalised industries for which he or his Ministry are not responsible. He has an opportunity tonight of establishing a very useful precedent as a result of which the Exchequer would gain and there would be no further continuance of these distinctions, for which, in my view and, apparently, in the view of at least one hon. Member opposite, there is no justification.

7.28 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that there should be no discrimination in respect of taxation, but I do not agree with another view which, I think, he holds, that it is permissible to make taxation retrospective. I will not follow him further because his questions were addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, as was his criticism, with which I fully sympathise.
The Parliamentary Secretary said, in opening, that the Section in the Electricity Act which gave the Minister power to settle compensation by Regulations was never discussed. I was on the Standing Committee which considered the Electricity Bill, and I know that that statement of the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly true. The reason why that Section was not discussed was because of the circumstances in which the latter part of the Committee stage took place. The hon. Gentleman will remember, however, that in the corresponding Bill which dealt with the gas industry, when more time was taken over the Standing Committee and these things were discussed in detail, this point was considered and dealt with in very great detail and we on this side took the strongest exception to the whole method of the settlement of compensation by Regulations.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) made a very comprehensive survey of these Regulations. I will do my best not to be repetitive in the few remarks I want to add, but I cannot go very far in this matter without raising one point on the Regulations themselves. I think the only test of such Regulations is whether compensation is really being given. There is very often a certain amount of misunderstanding of what compensation really is. I hold it to be simply an effort to make good the loss of future earnings. That is how I would define it. I say "an effort" because I believe it is an almost impossible thing to obtain. I do not believe that when a man is disturbed in the early stages of his career and deflected from one job to another that we could really adequately make up for the time he loses and cash emoluments he eventually also loses.
We can only make an effort and the acid test is whether the effort which is being made is substantial and really meeting the case. I feel that our modern legislation is not doing so. Up to the early days of this Government something was being done in that direction. They started on the right road in the Water Act of 1945. In Section 44 of that Act they took advantage of the provisions of an earlier Act, the Local Government Act, 1933, which, in subsections (2), (3) and (6) of Section 150 and the Fourth

Schedule, codified the long-standing arrangements that had obtained for generations in the public service for compensation for those who were redundant.
It was a very comprehensive and excellent code, and I think it a great pity that it has not been followed since. The principle of that code was that where a reform in the public interest causes a loss to an individual that loss should be made good, wholly or in part although it was recognised that one can never make it good altogether. That method has another advantage. If we put the substance of the Regulations in the Act, they are not only debatable, but also amendable. The trouble with this method of working by Regulations is that they are not amendable. We have to accept or reject them altogether, and that is a cumbersome procedure. Unfortunately, the method of using that excellent code went by the board in the mad race to force nationalisation Measures through the House in the early days of the last Parliament. As a result, a degeneration set in and compensation was to be given by Regulations dictated by a Minister and, I would remind the House, alterable by a later Minister, which is an important point.
I am certain that this had bad results. In the first place it has led to delays. We have an example here. The Electricity Bill was introduced in January, 1947, but it was more than three years before the Regulations were published when those concerned could know exactly their position. That was bound to cause anxiety and annoyance. It is possible that some interim payment may have been made to them, and I hope that later we shall be told that that was the case. Otherwise, they will have been very hardly treated. The old method was simple; the basis af assessment was the earnings lost and there was no discrimination. A man could claim a proportion of what was lost. I will not go into examples of discrimination, as my hon. and gallant Friend has dealt with some, but they are very substantial. I think the present system, as typified by these Regulations, is retrograde, cumbersome and unfair.
I am amazed that in the title of this Regulation two wholly different bodies of persons are lumped together as "Commissioners and others." The officers and members of two highly responsible and


much respected public bodies are put together, the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. The title is misleading because it suggests that those two bodies had virtually the same functions and the same organisation, which is entirely wrong. I also think it belittles their importance. They were people who, in their day, did a great deal of good and were very valuable and important. May I distinguish between them, because I do not think the distinction has been made clear in this Debate? The Electricity Commissioners were appointed by the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, which said:
… there shall be established for promoting, regulating, and supervising the supply of electricity, a body called the Electricity Commissioners consisting of not exceeding five members to be appointed by the Minister of Transport with the concurrence of the Board of Trade.
They were to be
Responsible to … and acting under the Minister of Transport. …
who was to make use of them as agents to carry out legislation and other powers and duties he wished to place upon them.
The Commissioners had various duties. They could make schemes to constitute electricity districts. Many of us believe that they had and could have used powers which would have done more than has been done by nationalisation, without all the disturbance which nationalisation caused. We think that instead of doing away with them we would have been better off today if they had been constituted as the British Electricity Authority. They could form joint electricity authorities and they could conduct experiments in distribution. I think those gentlemen did their job very well indeed. On one occasion I went to see them as a result of a question I asked. I was most courteously received and given a most satisfactory answer. I have a great respect for them.
The other body, the Central Electricity Board, were totally different. They were constituted by a later Act, the Electricity Supply Act, 1926. They consisted of a chairman and seven other members appointed by the Minister of Transport,
charged with the duty of supplying electricity to authorised undertakers …
Any of us who remember the grid and the grid system will remember what their

function was. They really ran the grid and were, in the terms of the Act
deemed, subject to the provisions of this Act to be authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882–1922 …
That is putting them in the same category as the big supply companies. To me, there was very little difference between the Central Electricity Board and one of the power companies, such as the London Electricity Supply Corporation, for example, which, until 1928, supplied electricity in bulk and then handed over its powers to the Central Electricity Board, but still sold some of the current it took from the Board to big undertakings like the Southern Railway.
The Central Electricity Board was a body which appeared in the Stock Exchange Official Year Book. Stocks were quoted under those of public boards. Their directors were, I believe, substantially the same as directors of public companies, with the exception of the chairman, who was full-time. One or two members may have been full-time—I could not say for certain—but I know that a number of them were engaged as directors in a great many other industries and were able to bring valuable help and advice to the Board through their knowledge of other industries. They were in exactly the same category as directors of other companies. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there was no question of the directors doing 30 hours a week. A great many of them attended their regular board meetings and no more.
The difference is really that whereas the Electricity Commissioners were virtually civil servants, members of the Central Electricity Board, with the exception of the chairman, were virtually directors. Here they are lumped together as if they were exactly the same. At the beginning of the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary did not make that distinction, but an important principle is involved.
In the past we have always been told that directors could not be given any compensation unless they were whole-time or practically whole-time directors. Here we have directors, who were by no means whole-time, receiving compensation. I am delighted. I hope that this shows a change of heart in the new Minister and that in future, when any other cases arise,


the old principle will be abandoned. This is a step forward and an indication that the proper status of directors and their value to the community will be recognised. It is a recognition that they will not be thrown out of work, as many good men have been during the nationalisation of the fuel and power industry. Many men who were virtually full-time directors of a number of companies are now out of work because of the way in which they have been treated.
I feel that at present it is unfair that directors appointed by Ministries should be given compensation when directors of bodies which are virtually the same, who have been appointed by their shareholders, are not. But if it is to mean that in future all directors, whether elected by shareholders or by Ministries, are to receive compensation when deprived of office then we are progressing. My hon. and gallant Friend dealt fully with the discrimination that is shown between members and officers, and I will not go over that ground again except to say that there is no improvement on what was shown in the actual terms given to members. There is no improvement on the Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, against which we protested vigorously at the time.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. In a Regulation, S.I., 1949, No. 460, Reg. 8 (4), the authority was entitled to take into account the income from any alternative employment subsequently obtained. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether similar treatment will be maintained under the Regulations which we are discussing, because from my reading of them it does not appear that such provisions are extended to members of the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners?
I repeat that on a number of counts we do not think that the Regulations are satisfactory. We feel that they are discriminatory as between officers and members. We feel that they are giving an advantage to directors nationally appointed as against those appointed by shareholders, and that no progress has been made on the early editions of all such Regulations as have been tabled.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I have listened to the hon. and gallant

Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) speaking about directors. I take the view that we are paying far too much compensation to them in the nationalised industries that we are taking over, and that we are carrying an unfair burden. I suggest that under the Regulations these people have been very generously dealt with indeed. The provision dealing with when they are to get compensation, says:
The amount of the compensation to which any such person is entitled, shall not exceed a sum equal to three times the amount of the emoluments received by him in any one year as a member of the Board or as one of the Commissioners. …
It means that any man covered by these Regulations who is displaced, will clear out with a large sum.
We find that in the compensation provisions dealing with the top end of the scale, it is possible for huge sums to be paid out, whereas at the other end of the scale those who are affected are paid off with "washers," as we say in Durham. I ask the Minister to take good care that we shall not have any more High Court cases in which someone is awarded £42,000 lump sum from a nationalised industry. I hope that the Regulations will be framed so that scandals of that character will be eradicated from our nationalised industries. These people are a thousand times better off than a displaced workman in a nationalised industry. I know that in my own industry men now get only a certain sum less than their wages for three or six months, whereas, before nationalisation, a man could have worked for 40 years and not get a penny when he had finished. I advise the Opposition to take with both hands what is offered in these Regulations instead of offering carping criticism of them. It is time the Minister stopped large fortunes being given to people such as we have seen in court cases affecting nationalised industries recently.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) is likely to have created a certain amount of animosity in the minds of those former trade unionists who now sit on regional coal boards. He has tonight laid down the doctrine that they can be displaced in the same way as an ordinary miner.


I think that some of those gentlemen will strongly object.
I make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a clearer explanation of these Regulations. His explanation passes all understanding. It was inadequate and inaccurate, and was one of the most casual statements to which this House has ever been treated by a Minister. The Minister did not even arrive in time; it was left to the Lord President to fulfil his functions. If the Parliamentary Secretary was not prepared to do so at the beginning of the Debate I really think he ought to make some further effort to deal with the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friends.
These Regulations are very badly drafted, and it is very difficult indeed to interpret them, but I think I am right in saying that there is an odd difference made between part-time Commissioners and full-time officers. The Minister agrees with that? The Commissioner is apparently compensated by a tax-free payment. What was wicked in Sir John Black and Mr. Lord is virtuous in an Electricity Commissioner. What a strange change of attitude there is in the Government's approach to compensation. What is the cause? Are the boys in the jobs now wanting compensation as well as salaries?

Mr. David Jones: Why not?

Mr. Bracken: Why not! That is an admission. The hon. Member asks, "Why not?" I can say this, that the British public will not approve of high salaries and big pensions for the boys in the jobs—more especially as many of the boys in the jobs are now receiving four to five times the salaries they received in their previous occupations, whether as trade union leaders or in other capacities.
Throughout the 18th century, there were the most furious rows in this House about the patronage that the Whigs tried to get in order to reward their followers. But now the rapacity of this Government for patronage is greater than that of Charles James Fox. They not only want to give their boys immense salaries, but through this type of Regulation, they are also trying to endow them with pensions. Meanwhile, the small people are disregarded or as the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)

would say, they get no lump sums. We all know how bitterly he is opposed to the payment of lump sums. We know how much he feels the wickedness of Sir John Black and Mr. Lord. But, nevertheless, he is prepared to support the Government in granting lump sums to their pets. The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to choose his position; he cannot sway to and fro in the way he does——

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice. Perhaps he did not listen when I was speaking, and I do not blame him for that. But what I did object to was the constitution of a category of "compensatees"—if I may coin such a word——

Mr. Pickthorn: No!

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: —who will not pay tax on the compensation they have received.

Mr. Bracken: The explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman reminds me of a jingle which I heard when I was a little boy:
I've seen diamonds in Amsterdam
And I've seen spiders in Lipton's jam.
[HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] Yes, so what? Nobody can understand that jingle or the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let us now sum up what this Government—a Socialist Government, believe it or not—intend to do under these Regulations. They mean to penalise, or at any rate not to do justice to the clerks, the small people. They may be thrown on the labour market. They must not get any compensation, oh no. These displaced persons, if I may so describe them—and they are so in many cases—are not to be given any real scope in the new posts that have been offered to them without any security of tenure by the Ministry. The hon. Gentleman told us: "Don't bother about these people; they have been taken care of by the beneficent Ministry of Fuel and Power." Are they established civil servants?

Mr. Robens: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of that?

Mr. Robens: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not, and there will be some hon. Members behind me who will later have a word or two to say about these matters. I say they are not. Furthermore—and this is a very serious matter—why were not these unfortunates treated with the same generosity as was shown to the Commissioners? Just because they are small persons. It is only too obvious that the greatest patrons of privilege in this country are the present Socialist Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] What, under these Regulations, is offered to a man who has spent most of his life in a full-time job in the Electricity Commission? In certain cases he has been offered a post in the Ministry of Fuel and Power. His training may have fitted him for something better; and the experience he has garnered in a life-time may be thrown away.
What sort of post has been offered to a long-time servant of the Electricity Commissioners? For all I know he may rank little above the lowest officers employed by the Minister. An argument is put forward by the Minister, by way of interruption—he is more clear when he is sitting down than when he is standing at that Box—that a man may get compensation. Such a man is not getting compensation for expectation. Certainly not. He is getting no compensation for that. A man who has served the Electricity Commissioners well—and the Commissioners were a sensible body—may prove to be a great failure in that mess and muddle called the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Nevertheless, he is "drafted," as the Americans say, into a new occupation, or put in a job which may not in any way give him a chance of using his past experience; and according to the Minister, if he is thrown out all he will get will be the most meagre compensation.
I must say that it ill-becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite, who spend so much time talking about privilege, to penalise the small man in the way they are doing through these Regulations. What are they doing now? They are standing up for capital payments to persons that the Government fancy; letting the small clerk, the small engineer—what one might call members of the lower middle classes—suffer the full blast of adversity when, sooner or later, the Ministry have to cut

down their over-padded ranks. It is amazing to anyone on this side of the House to find that this Government, of all Governments, is favouring the privileged——

Mr. Manuel: How did private enterprise treat these people?

Mr. Bracken: They treated them very well indeed. We are not talking about the Commissioner class. They, also, have been treated very well indeed. We were never the friends of the privileged in the same—[Laughter]—it would be well worth lisening to the end of my sentence. We were never the friends of the privileged on the same scale as is the Government. All I need add is this: I have beard a rumour, and I hope it is true, that the Chairman of the Coal Board is to resign. It seems to me that somebody on the other side of the House, or elsewhere, may wish to occupy his office, and wants to make absolutely certain that not only is there a salary with the job, but a fat pension as well. I must say to the Minister that these Regulations are utterly unworthy of him.

7.58 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) making his little jokes which he himself applauds with little cries which remind me of one of the characters in "Much Binding in the Marsh" to which I listen now and then; and I feel that he has brought this Debate down to a level in which I can intervene. I have been waiting for 17 years for an opportunity of mentioning an unobtrusive little Act of Parliament which was passed by the Conservative Government of 1933 and which involves a very important principle. I refer to the Act for prohibiting trading in certain caged wild birds.
I mention this Act now, because it casts a light on the Conservative doctrine of compensation. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) was contradicted by right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth East and Christchurch. I think they will have to make their peace between themselves; because one was telling us we were giving far too much compensation and the other was blaming us because we were not paying every farthing which could be paid to anybody.
The Conservative Party are always ready to compensate and act as the guardians of anybody who suffers any loss in his official position as the result of any Act passed by this House. But, of course, that was not observed by the Conservative Party when they passed the Act to prohibit the trade in caged wild birds which, up to that moment, was quite legal. The fact is that the Conservative Party did not approve of the kind of gentlemen who, at that time, were engaged in trading in caged blackbirds, blackcaps, bluethroats, bramblings, bullfinches, buntings, chaffinches and so on.

Mr. Bracken: If we deprived the hon. Baronet of his business as a caged bird exploiter, we left him with his broad acres, at any rate.

Sir R. Acland: That personal interruption does not advance the principle much further. In 1933, until the passage of this Act by the Conservative Government, there were certain gentlemen who were legally entitled to make their living, to draw emoluments, from what was a perfectly legal trade. The Conservative Party made that trade illegal, and they did not offer a penny in compensation to people who were deprived of their legitimate business. I think that was scandalous and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch brought the Debate to a level at which I had the opportunity of saying so.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Before the hon. Baronet sits down, would he devote his mind for one moment to the Regulations which are before the House? Would he say on what principle he justifies quite different conditions being applied to those gentlemen who fall under Part I and those gentlemen who fall under Part II?

Sir R. Acland: At least, these gentlemen get some compensation of some kind. I do not quite know how the hon. and learned Member justifies asking me that question when he belongs to the party which, in 1933, did not give any compensation whatever to gentlemen dealing in wild birds.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Robens: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I might reply to some of the points raised, not on the

question of bullfinches, chaffinches or bullfrogs, but on the Regulations.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman can have another chance on those.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), waxing indignant once again in that special way of his when he comes down to entertain and delight us in this House, made a number of gross errors. All were most apparent to the House and not really worth bothering about in great detail, but he challenged me when he asked whether these people were established. I said that they were established. He said that they were not. Perhaps at this stage, he might tell us who are and who are not.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman had no right to say that these dispossessed people are established, because a number, on his own confession, work for B.E.A. now. Have they got full compensation and a guarantee of life employment from B.E.A.? The hon. Gentleman should send his diligent Parliamentary Private Secretary to consult the officials below the Gallery before he answers that question.

Mr. Robens: He does not need to do that, because he happens to know what he is talking about. That is rather different from the right hon. Gentleman. The fact is that all these persons, who were established with the Electricity Commissioners came into the Civil Service as established civil servants.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Robens: This is terrible. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not get too alarmed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman was late, he might give way.

Colonel Clarke: On a point of Order. Do you think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary is still rather confused in his mind, as he was when he first spoke, between the members of the British Electricity Authority and the Electricity Commission? I do not think that he is clear about the difference between the two.

Mr. Robens: I am perfectly clear, but I doubt very much if hon. Gentlemen opposite are very clear about anything


connected with these Regulations. I am trying to cast a little light upon their darkness. The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) apparently wants to prepare a speech. I will give him time to do that, but it would seem to me that I might as well wait until we have had these speeches because I cannot intervene continuously.

Mr. Bracken: We will give the hon. Gentleman a chance later if he goes on now.

Mr. Robens: I was saying that those who were established officers of the Electricity Commission who came over to the Civil Service became established civil servants. From there a number went over to the B.E.A., and they have gone on approved service and are established.

Mr. Bracken: Mr. Brackenindicated dissent.

Mr. Robens: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. These people are established. I know that that does not agree with what he said. Nevertheless, those are the facts. I do not know where he is getting his information from, but clearly it does not show the truth of the situation. A suggestion was made that there was nothing to safeguard the man who is offered a worse job. I think the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) said that. What surprises me when we have a Debate on Regulations is that nobody opposite seems to take the trouble to read them.

Mr. Bracken: Do not be offensive.

Mr. Robens: It sounds very odd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that. He starts by being offensive from the very beginning and he ends offensively. Simply because he has a broad smile on his face, that does not mean that we should stand for all this.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman really must not make such a statement, as that we have not read the Regulations. It is within the knowledge of the House that he had not done his homework as a Minister when he appeared here this afternoon. It was left to the Lord President of the Council whose information about these Regulations is a little better than the Minister's, to get up and take his place. The hon. Gentleman struck a

misfortune. His colleague in a previous Debate sat down too soon. He had not got the resource to carry on. The hon. Gentleman knows that he had not read the Regulations. He was mugging them up, and he was caught short. It ill becomes the Minister so casually to accuse this party which is so devoted to duty, of not understanding these Regulations. I could pass an examination——

Mr. David Jones: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a second speech without asking permission of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles Mat-Andrew): The Minister gave way.

Mr. Robens: I was saying that it would be better if hon. Gentlemen opposite really read the Regulations. Then we should probably have a Debate on the Regulations. So far, we have covered many aspects which are clearly not within the Regulations at all. A suggestion was made that there was nothing in the Regulations to safeguard a man who was offered a worse job. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest made that statement. Clearly, the Regulations provide for that. The offer, if it is to be relevant at all, must be an offer of suitable and reasonable employment. That is specified in the main Regulations. Therefore, there is no question of offering any job to an individual. It must be suitable and reasonable.

Mr. Bracken: Who are the judges of that?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Who are the judges?

Mr. Robens: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen keep crying out like parrots, repeating one another, "Who are the judges?" Again, if they had read and understood the Regulations, they would know that an independent tribunal under the Minister of Labour is the judge who will decide on questions of fairness.

Mr. Bracken: I do not believe in them.

Mr. Robens: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in independent tribunals set up by the Ministry of Labour. I cannot help that. I can only hope that, as time goes on, his ideas on these tribunals will improve. My own


experience, as a trade union official, of tribunals under the Minister of Labour is that they have been very fair and impartial, and that they have done a lot of good work. No man who felt that he had not been treated fairly under the Regulations would hesitate about going before a tribunal of that character to have his case dealt with. The answer to the question, "Who is to decide?" is that ultimately if there is not agreement, an independent tribunal will decide.

Mr. Bracken: Appointed by the Government.

Mr. Robens: I will not pursue these odd bits of interruption. Some reference was made to the very large sums, to the court cases and to the £42,000 which some individual had got. Those are not payments under Regulations such as these. They are matters in relation to the breaking of contracts, and they are matters for the court to decide. They are not at all matters which these Regulations attempt to cover. If anybody has a specific and legal contract and that contract is broken, then the breaking of that contract must be paid for, and if the parties do not reach agreement on the amount to be paid for the broken contract, the courts are there to decide the matter.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest disputed my statement that, in the event of a man losing his job or suffering a worsening of his conditions in 10 years, provided it was not due to misconduct, the onus of responsibility for proving that it was not due to nationalisation was upon the boards. I am surprised that he did dispute it, although again I ought to say that, if he had read the Regulations, he would have known perfectly well that he was wrong when he did dispute it. While he quoted one section of the main Regulations, he completely missed Regulation 10, which lays down quite clearly that, unless the contrary be proved, he shall be deemed to have lost his employment. What I said in regard to the onus of responsibility is therefore perfectly true.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman again raised the question of the eight years' service. I thought I had said at the beginning of the Debate that we had had a discussion in this House for three hours on this question of part-time directors, the 30 hours in relation to them and the eight years' service which an individual

must have had. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would care to read HANSARD for 9th March, 1949, he will see all these arguments reproduced there. The column references are 1299–1300 in respect of directors, and 1300 in respect of the number of years, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to them, he will be reminded of the contribution which he himself made, as did some of his hon. Friends. We have gone over that ground time and time again, and I do not think there is any point in pursuing it further.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did however, say that, if an individual went into the employment of an electricity undertaking two weeks before he went for his military service, when he came back his military service was in fact counted. That is true, and I think it is right and proper—[Interruption.] I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he was drawing a distinction between the man who had some short period of service in the electricity undertaking before going to do his military service and the man who had no such service at all.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It was simply the case of two people, let us say, aged 18, one a volunteer in, say 1940, who went straight into the Services, while the other had a week with B.E.A. or a private company before he did his military service. The first one, because he was a volunteer, gets no compensation, while the second man, called up after a week's service, gets full compensation.

Mr. Robens: That is exactly the case that I was making. It is quite right that the man who entered the service of the electricity industry and then went to take his military service, no matter what time elapsed after he joined the electricity industry, should have his military service counted in his eight years. But when it is suggested that a man who joins the electricity industry after his military service should have his period of military service counted, I do not think that is a reasonable thing. How does one know where a man is going to work after he has done his military service? There can be no obligation on the electricity industry for the period of time occupied by his military service. He may not have made up his mind to go into the electricity industry until he has come out of the Service.
Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be asking the electricity industry, or any other industry to which similar regulations apply, to take on a liability the size of which they could not possibly know beforehand. While it is right that military service should be taken into consideration once a man has started work with an undertaking, I cannot see the logic of saying that anybody who joins an electricity undertaking after doing their military service should have that period of miliary service regarded as part of their employment. It seems to me that that would be an almost impossible position.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also made fairly great play of the different treatment accorded to members of the Central Electricity Board and Electricity Commissioners and the officers of the Electricity Commissioners. I thought I had made the matter fairly clear in my opening speech. I made the point—and hon. Gentlemen can read it tomorrow in HANSARD—that the Central Electricity Board members have no pension rights at all. They are appointed for a limited time, sometimes for a period of three years, and I thought I had indicated that there are five part-time members, none of whom had any rights or gratuities, so that any claim they had must be one for loss of employment.
When we look at loss of employment, we find that we are not dealing with the possibility of employment, say, of a man of 30 until he retires at the age of 60 or 65, but something quite different. The loss of employment in this case will be limited to three years, and it goes no further at all. Indeed, the age of the individual must be taken into consideration even when determining how much of the three years he shall have, because, as I have already indicated, since they are elderly people, it would be reasonable to say that a man of 70 could not normally expect to be re-appointed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why not?

Mr. Robens: If I were the Minister, I should not be looking for people of 70 in order to re-appoint them. I should say that a man of 70 would have less chance of being re-appointed than a man of 50, and I think that is reasonable.
Therefore, there is a very great difference between the two cases, and I want to say that we are dealing here with a very small number of specific people, and not with hypothetical cases. There are only three people involved, as two of them died after the dissolution and therefore they do not enter into the picture to any great extent. Indeed, they could only enter into it for the period up to the time of death. Therefore, we have these three people involved, and that is what all this great shout is about. The difference in treatment is because of the different circumstances of the case.
One has to try not to treat one section of the community unfairly at the expense of the rest, but we have genuinely and honestly tried in these Regulations to carry out the requirement which was laid upon the Minister in the Act itself specifically to bring in Regulations that are fair and honest, and which, in relation to all other people covered by similar conditions. I therefore hope that the House will at this stage now agree to these Regulations.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I remind him that he has not touched on the question of the lump sum, which was raised by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House? Can he tell us whether these lump sums will in fact be tax-free payments or not? Will he also say if the cases of Sir John Kennedy and Mr. Nimmo will in due course be accorded such treatment, and whether he would explain the difference in principle between their cases and those of Sir John Black and Mr. Lord?

Mr. Robens: In the first place, the question of taxation on any compensation is not covered by the Regulations, and I have no doubt that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would rule a discussion on taxation out of order. Indeed, I am surprised that many hon. Members have been able to introduce it. Therefore, it would appear to me to be a question which might suitably be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt that, in view of the great interest which the right hon. Gentleman has in this matter, he will do that.

Mr. Lloyd: Then the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give an answer?

Mr. Robens: I am not prepared as a junior Minister to deal with a Treasury question on a matter which we are not even discussing.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I will do my best not to be more repetitive than I think necessary, but I shall be as repetitive as I think necessary within the discretion of the Chair. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will accuse me of not having read the Regulations, although I would by no means boast that I have understood them. They are not always easy to understand, and hon. Gentlemen who have the benefit of having their attention called to them continuously and not being wrenched back to them once every 18 months, and who also have the advantage of the most expert coaching, ought not to be too superior and condemnatory if they think they have understood the Regulations better than their critics.
I do not propose to do more than try to make plain to the hon. Gentleman what are the questions which rather worry us, and which I do not think he still has straight in his head. I will begin by saying that I thought the hon. Gentleman was a little indiscreet in the vote of censure which we passed upon his colleagues and superiors who appointed Sir Ben Smith at the age of 72, and the effects which his remarks may have had on Sir Ben Smith at the age of 75 will not, I hope, be serious, but they can hardly fail to be less than considerable.

Mr. Robens: I do not see anything funny in that.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman and I seemed to be agreed—the only two who are on that point.
The only thing he has got at is this point of the apparent distinction in treatment between those who might be likened to directors and those who might be likened to head technicians or administrators in the employment of a firm. The hon. Gentleman made no attempt at all to explain that in his opening remarks. He has now made an attempt to explain it, and perhaps he will forgive me if I try to put the explanation back again in order to make sure where we are going now.
I understand that, in the first place, the directorial category is represented by

very few people, and, in the second place, that those people are all men who have no pension rights. That is why the compensation in their case is something different from what it is in the case of the people in the rank just below. I think that was the explanation we were given, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will correct me if I have not now got it, because it is to that view, if I have it right, that I shall address myself.

Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Gentleman also add the other important point about the short term that these people might expect to serve in their present office, because a director might be expected, according to his age, to go on for a long time?

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope hon. Members will not think me funny if I add also the Ben Smith point. Those are the distinctions between the one class and the other. I would suggest that those distinctions do not really comport the consequences that the Minister desired to draw from them. The whole of this business really goes wrong when Governments start using words in senses different from those which they have hitherto borne. Compensation should mean compensation, that is to say, giving to somebody from whom one is taking something, something else which will be as nearly as one can manage equivalent. I have not looked it up, but I will make a small bet that that is pretty accurately the proper, traditional dictionary sense of the word "compensation." But when Governments begin to sophisticate with that and say, for instance, "We must make sure that they do not get more than £4,000 a year or that they do not get more than the taxpayer can afford," then compensation ceases to mean what it always has meant, and means such ex gratia payment as from time to time may be politically convenient. That is what this Government have caused compensation to mean, because the fact that these men have or have not pension rights cannot really affect what we are talking of here, which is what should be the basis of compensation for loss of earnings. I invite the hon. Gentleman to explain whether that reasoning is mistaken.
Secondly, the argument will not do that these are very few persons. If, in fact, these Regulations are directed wholly to specific, known persons, then I think the


better way would have been to give the name of the persons in the body of the Regulations, or, if they are readily put into three or four categories, in the Schedule. Otherwise, see what is going to happen. Supposing he were to say, "As a matter of fact, under these Regulations, no money is going to pass at all. Almost if not all of them are civil servants, established, very many of them, and those at the highest level are in the Ben Smith age group, and all the rest are already being better employed than they were before." That is the argument—these Regulations do not matter.
If the House accepts that argument, mark what follows. The next time Regulations of this sort have to be brought in, we are going to be told, as we were this evening with respect to the main Regulations, "We have had a long Debate on this before. The House accepted it. We cannot go back on this now. This is the way the thing ought to be done." That will be the conclusion, if the hon. Gentleman's last speech were left without some comment, and that is why I rise to my feet again. Perhaps it is not worth going on with the thing, but I think it is on the whole. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish us always to mark our dissent by dividing, with the House composed as it is, and we do not wish always to be forced to divide the House.

Mr. Blackburn: Oh!

Mr. Pickthorn: Certainly not; and if not, the duty is the greater upon them to make sure that they have answered any questions and removed any doubts that we have put, as long as we have not unreasonably or factiously put them.
These are distinctions for which we still do not see the reasons. If a man is a member—that is to say, if he corresponds to a director in a great private enterprise concern—he receives a lump sum. Let me pause on that to ask some questions. It will not do to say, "Whether the lump sum is taxable or not is a matter for the Treasury." Of course, in so far as in saying so the hon. Gentleman was rebuking his supporters, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), in so

far as he was indicating to them that he cannot by Statutory Instrument make something to be taxable or not taxable, as they begged him to do, in so far as that is what he means the constitutional lesson may be useful—though I am sorry to see that neither of the two hon. Gentlemen concerned is here to hear my re-emphasising of the constitutional lesson which the Parliamentary Secretary gave them.
But for any purpose, that argument really will not do. We really should be told now: Does the Ministry of Fuel and Power or does it not, think that in giving these lump sums it is giving sums not liable to taxation? Or does it not know? It is perfectly plain that whether or not this is proper compensation must turn on the question whether it is taxable or not. That is quite plain, and it simply will not do for the Minister in charge to say, "That is a Treasury question which I cannot answer." Of course, he might make a mistaken answer. The Attorney-General might. We know that the Attorney-General habitually gives legal advice to the House, and no doubt nine times out of ten it is right. But it is not binding; it is not legislative; the courts may decide the contrary. I say it is quite ridiculous for a Minister to come down to the House and say, "This is the right compensation, and I cannot tell you whether or not every pound of this compensation is worth a 'quid' or whether it is only worth 11s., or what it is worth." That really will not do, and I think we ought to have an answer to this question. Whichever way the answer is, we ought to be told: Is the result an advantage to members of these boards as contrasted with the officers in their employ? Is it an advantage or is it not? We ought to be told.
Similarly, members need have no qualifying period of service. On the other side there must be at least eight years. Why eight years? Today, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that that was a question which ought not to be asked because it had been settled by him ex cathedra nearly a year ago. But when he settled it ex cathedra nearly a year ago the only argument he gave for saying that it ought to be eight years was that the day before yesterday he thought it ought to be ten years. There was no


other argument at all given to us. Perhaps eight years is the right amount, but what we want to know is: Why the distinction? Why eight years on the one side and none on the other? Why on the one side is there to be compensation whether the work was whole-time or part-time, when on the other side the work must have been whole-time? These are things, many of them I think right in themselves, which in the main Regulations were asked for for what were called working directors—I think rather offensively to other directors—of the private enterprise companies. I want to know what is the distinction between the two.
I do not know that I need take the thing further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, if hon. Gentlemen are facetious I shall take it further. I do not quite understand what hon. Gentlemen opposite do want. Do they think it is wrong and wicked for the Opposition to divide against a Government which has so obvious a mandate? Apparently they think that it is trifling for the Opposition to try to argue with a Government so ably represented as it is at this moment. What do they think we are to do? We must be allowed to do one or the other, and if they are not polite when we try to do one, we shall more frequently do the other.
I hope that I have put plainly to the Parliamentary Secretary what are the things we have not understood about these regulations. I do not for a moment suggest that the want of understanding may not partly be our fault. But I do say that it is certainly partly the fault of his original explanation, which was quite useless. His original explanation told us nothing at all which anybody could be expected to gather in the time; and I do not think his second explanation was as lucid an exposition as it might have been. In any case, these are questions which clearly the House of Commons ought to understand before it passes these regulations, and I make this challenge: That there are not two hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Parliamentary Secretary who could make the answers to those questions. There ought always to be some considerable number of Members of this House who have really understood them before Regulations of this sort go through, which certainly will be prayed in aid in the future by the hon. Gentleman or his successors.

That is why I have ventured, even at so comparatively late a stage, to make the intervention I have made.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: I want to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) that the Parliamentary Secretary should answer the question about Income Tax. Let us look at the position. On the one side, we have the members compensated by a lump sum, and, on the other, the officers who are compensated by annual sums. The Parliamentary Secretary brought forward a number of arguments to justify that distinction. I am not concerned to say at this moment whether those arguments were justified or not, but implicit in them must be the consideration of whether a lump sum is subject to Income Tax or not.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that he said that one of the reasons for the lump sum was that the members were serving only for a short time, perhaps for only two or three years, and that therefore it was apposite to compensate them with a lump sum. If we have to compare that lump sum with the annual payments, we have to know whether the Minister of Fuel and Power thinks that it is subject to Income Tax or not.
I ask hon. Members opposite to put themselves in the position of a member who is listening to this Debate and who is wondering whether the compensation is adequate or not. He is told that the officers are compensated by an annual sum worked out on certain principles which are contained in the 1949 Regulations, and then he turns to the compensation provisions in these Regulations, and he sees that a lump sum is provided. He listens to the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary and, assuming for the moment that he is willing to compare the two compensations in the light of those arguments, how is he to get on unless he knows whether he is subject to tax or not? How is he to compare the amounts? That is what the House has to do. The member whom I am imagining as listening to this Debate cannot intervene, and it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides to see that the Regulations are fair.
In judging whether these Regulations should be passed or not, we have to


judge whether they are fair or not, and how can we judge that if we do not know the answer to the most important practical matter—practical because if we do tax it, it comes out of the member's pocket—of whether he has to pay the tax or not.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman is himself, I hope, frequently paid large sums of money for advising on this very matter, and surely, in general, it is accepted that lump sums are not liable to tax and annual sums are. Whatever the position may be, surely it is not within the province of the Minister of Fuel and Power to make a statement on that.

Mr. Foster: That was the point I was trying to make. Surely if he comes to the House and says that these two lots of compensation are fair—and I am assuming for a moment that he may be right—annually in the case of officers for reasons A, B and C and a lump sum for members because of reasons X, Y and Z, we cannot compare the two until we know whether it is subject to tax or not.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that I know. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman as to whether they are subject to tax or not if it had not been for the principle introduced in the Finance Bill. I agree that it may be an awkward question for the Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not blame him for trying to ride it off by an answer which, as my hon. Friend said, "Won't do." I do not blame him. It is worth trying and it is Parliamentary tactics to say, "I have nothing to do with taxation; put that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer." It is not an answer, however, if one of the factors he has to lay before the House is whether the compensation is fair or not. That is the point. He should find out from his colleagues, and he can obviously quite easily find out. He may now have found out, I do not know. For instance, if there is some information to come from another Ministry to decide whether the compensation is fair or not, the Parliamentary Secretary has to find out and tell the House, because the House has

to know in deciding whether the compensation is fair or not.

Mr. Blackburn: Was not the only point on this matter that retrospective legislation might at some subsequent stage be introduced, so that whatever the Minister says now will not affect the position?

Mr. Foster: Let me sketch the sort of answer the Parliamentary Secretary might have to make. He might have to say that as the law is at present the lump sum is not subject to taxation, that he has asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has found out that the Clause, as drafted, would probably or certainly, according to the information given him, make these lump sums subject to taxation. In the light of that, he would say, having had that answer, that he still thinks this is fair, or, having had that answer which he did not know in the drafting of the Regulations, he is going to withdraw and alter them. That is the sort of area in which he ought to make his answer.
Does he realise that if it is subject to taxation, as I expect it is under the new Finance Bill, he deprives certain members, if they have a large individual income, of the whole of the compensation? Does he realise that when he pays a lump sum by way of compensation and it is subject to taxation, he is penalising a person because, even if he has no other income, he is making his bracket larger in that year? Does he realise that if it is subject to taxation, he is saying that members on the one hand are to get larger compensation, but on the other hand that they are to be deprived of it by taxation?
Does he think that if the House is not told, it cap judge whether it is fair, or that it is right for the Parliamentary Secretary not to disclose the information which he must know by now? I can see why it is embarrassing, namely, because he said that he was not going to say so. I judge that when he will not say something that he must know, it is embarrassing. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see that if it is subject to taxation, it destroys his argument? If he says sotto voce, as I think he does, that he does not think so, he ought to have told the House that compensation for the officers is obviously subject to tax and so is that for the lump sum members. I appreciate he should


have added that if a member has an income in the high Surtax bracket, he will not get any compensation at all because the Government think he should not get any, which is why they have given the compensation in a lump sum.
He ought to have told the House what is his idea of justice in compensating these members, and on what basis he justifies paying them a big sum one year, instead of in three years, so that it attracts the larger taxation. If it is subject to taxation, our argument might also have been different. We might have said that we do not want these members to be penalised by being paid a high sum in immediate compensation so that they lose more money, and that we think it fair that it should be spread over the three years they would have been in office, therefore bringing them into line with the officers. On the other hand, if it is not subject to taxation, our argument might be that the officers are not being well enough treated. It is impossible for the House to decide which argument is right until it knows the basic fact whether these amounts are subject to taxation or not. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary sees——

Mr. Robens: No, I do not.

Mr. Foster: He does not. It is almost incredible.

Mr. Monslow: So is the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Foster: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary sees that if a lump sum is subject to taxation it makes a difference to the man who receives it.

Mr. Robens: I can see that.

Mr. Foster: He sees that. If we do not know whether this is subject to taxation we do not know whether it will make a difference to the man who receives it or not. The hon. Gentleman refuses to tell us and the House does not know. Does he think it is fair to carry on this matter on the basis that the man who is going to get compensation does not know whether he is going to have it taken away in taxation or not? The compensation is given under the existing law, and we must know what the law is before we can judge of the fairness of the compensation. The hon. Gentleman pretends not to understand because he does not want to

give the answer. I challenge him to tell the House whether he knows the answer. He can get up and say, "I know the answer," or "I do not know the answer."

Mr. Robens: The simple answer would be that any lump sum would not be subject to taxation unless it falls within the provisions of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Foster: The next question is, does it fall within the provisions of the Finance Bill? Will he say whether he knows or whether he does not know? Obviously that is the preliminary matter which we have to go through, but the answer we want now is whether the hon. Gentleman can inform us if this comes within the provision of the Finance Bill as drafted. Can he give us the answer? Again I challenge him to get up and say, "I know the answer to that," or "I do not know the answer."

Mr. Robens: No takers.

Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman admit he does not know? Will he admit that he does not know?

Mr. Robens: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished beating his wife?

Mr. Foster: The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that that question is like "Have you finished beating your wife?" It is quite a simple question. The Parliamentary Secretary reminds me of the boy who came home and said, "I have got into the police force," and the father said, "It is incredible, you never passed an examination in your life." "Oh yes, I did," replied the boy, "and I got 50 per cent." "That is extraordinary," answered the father, "how did you do it?" The boy replied, "They only asked me two questions." "How lucky you were," said the father. "What were they?" The lad answered, "They asked me what was the capital of England, and I said 'Paris' and that was wrong. I lost that one. The next question they asked me was, 'Where is Bristol.' I said, 'I do not know,' and that was right, so I got 50 per cent."
The Parliamentary Secretary is asked a simple question and he does not know the answer, or he does not want to tell us whether this compensation will come or will not come within the provisions of the Finance Bill as drafted. That question is vital to the man who is going


to get compensation, and very vital to the House, which has to try to see whether compensation is fair or not. Hon. Members opposite are surely concerned with whether compensation is fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But I assume they are. In deciding that they must have regard to the law as it is intended by the Government at this moment. Of course, they say, "We will never bring in legislation to make similar things taxable." We hope so. We hope that although it is not taxable now they will not tax it in five years' time retrospectively. I do not put that past them.
It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "In my opinion and upon my information the lump sum does—or does not—come under the provisions of the present Finance Bill." I say that he must either know or have heard the answer, or he has not. He will not say so. He could get up easily and tell us. I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary—[An HON. MEMBER: "Repetition."] I agree that to a certain extent it is repetition, but it is needed in the interests of fairness.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) is most distinguished for his advocacy. I am sure he knows perfectly well that he has been repeating his argument for about 20 minutes. Is it in Order for him to challenge us to answer a question in the way that he is doing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I did not gather that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I did gather that he was drawing to a close.

Mr. Foster: You are quite right, Sir. I was saying that I admit that there has been a certain amount of repetition. I do not apologise for it, because the Parliamentary Secretary ought to have got up. It is in the interests of the House that he should give us a clear answer.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I have no desire whatsoever to continue this Debate if the Parliamentary Secretary will get up and give a reply to a question to which it is vital that the House should have an answer before it

comes to a conclusion on the merits of these Regulations. I imagine that if he does not get up there will be several Members who will wish to address the House. I wish merely to put a question to him in a slightly different form from that in which it was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster). Perhaps it will make it slightly easier for the Parliamentary Secretary, whose mind we do not wish unnecessarily to strain.
It is clear that the proposed sum cannot be fair as compensation, both if it is subject to taxation and if it is not subject to taxation. It cannot be fair in both cases because taxation will make an enormous difference to the compensation. I ask the Minister to answer this simple question: Will the sum provided under these Regulations be fair compensation on the assumption that it is to be taxed, or on the assumption that it is not to be taxed? If I yield, will the Minister answer that question?

Mr. Robens: I should think that any arrangements made under these Regulations, whether they are for lump sums or not lump sums, will be fair and equitable ones.

Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for attempting to answer the question, but he will have to try again. If he will think over his answer a little he will see that it is not quite good enough. While the sum awarded as compensation will no doubt be intended to be fair, it cannot be fair both on the assumption that it is taxable and on the assumption that it is not taxable. It can only be fair on one of those two assumptions, the assumptions being contradictory.

Mr. Robens: On a point of Order. I would submit at this stage, with great respect, that this Debate is becoming a farce. [Interruption.] Don't pull it; it's long enough already. In my view the Debate is not reflecting credit on the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Breach of Privilege."] I would like to put this point to you, Major Milner, that all the discussion about the effect of taxation upon the arrangements made under these Regulations is out of order. I suggest that the argument that the incidence of taxation makes the compensation fair or unfair is also as out of Order as it


would be to argue that the salary of a Member of Parliament—the salaries are equal for all of us at £1,000—is either the right or the wrong salary according to the amount of Income Tax which we pay, and which is determined by other things. I suggest that the incidence of taxation upon the Regulations, which are only aimed at assessing a sum, has nothing whatever to do with the question.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: May I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with respect, that you do not require the advice of the hon. Gentleman on a point of this nature—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was a point of Order."]—and that this incident would not have been necessary if the hon. Gentleman had conducted the business of his Department in a less provocative manner.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I can rule a reference to taxation in a matter of this sort out of order, but I would point out that there is a Standing Order which refers to tedious repetition and that the Chair might feel it necessary to bring that into operation if there is such repetition.

Mr. Strauss: I respectfully submit to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That was the very submission that I was about to make. Before the hon. Gentleman put his point of Order I was thanking him for having intervened and for saying that the compensation to be awarded would be fair, but I was saying that his intervention was not good enough to allay our anxiety.
We are not debating any question of taxation. What we want to know is the meaning of something in these Regulations. However much he may desire—I give him credit for desiring—that the compensation shall be fair, it is quite impossible for him or anybody else to know whether it is fair unless he knows the vitally important fact, whether it is to be taxed or not. That must be material in deciding whether it is fair. The Minister has had time to take advice and find out what the Government's intention in the

matter is. I do not want to repeat the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend and so I will put it differently. I ask the Minister categorically to answer this question: Does he think that the lump sum provided for under these regulations is fair on the supposition that it will be taxed or that it is fair on the supposition that it will not be taxed?

Mr. Bracken: Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the Debate on the ground that we might secure the attendance of the Minister? I am not accusing the Parliamentary Secretary of being mute through malice; he is merely mute through ignorance. He has told us that he does not understand these regulations. No doubt his superior does. If we could get the Minister or the Attorney-General here, it would be of great advantage to the House. I rather think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you may think that this proposal for the Adjournment is not quite in Order. It is certainly not frivolous but it may not be quite in Order, so I leave myself in your hands.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept such a Motion. I think it is now my duty to put the Question.

Mr. J. Foster: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Should the Parliamentary Secretary say to one of my hon. Friends about some part of his anatomy that he should not pull it because it is long enough? Surely that is a very un-parliamentary thing to say. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of laughing at it, will withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear any objectionable expression.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Electricity (Commissioners and Others) (Compensation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, 1949, in the last Parliament, be approved.

CHEESE PRICES

8.59 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 6th April, 1950, entitled the Cheese (General Licence and Amendment No. 4) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 583), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th April, be annulled.
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported this Order to the House on the ground that its form and purport call for elucidation. The Committee has expressed the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to this Order.
Before I go any further may I say how glad I am to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in his place? He and I were both members of the Select Committee for quite a long time. May I remind him that if he wishes to keep his job in the Government he must refrain from talking in his sleep or mentioning feather beds when he is awake. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very cheap."] I am sorry that hon. Members cannot take a pleasant personal reference and an encouragement of hope for the future for the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary.
The Order to which I refer, and against which I am moving this Prayer, does one thing to which we on this side of the House take no exception, indeed we welcome it. It frees the soft cheese or curd cheese from the maximum price provisions and Cheese (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1948, Statutory Instrument 1062. I shall refer to that Order of 1948 as the principal Order because the one against which I am moving this Prayer is an amendment to that Order and there were two previous amendments to which I shall have to invite the attention of the House. So I shall have nothing further to say about the removal of price control on soft or curd cheese. I should also say that the Order against which I am moving this Prayer makes a further—and, we hope, in one sense a final—amendment to Part I of the First Schedule to the principal Order. It is a good thing it does so because, as I shall explain, that Schedule had got into a considerable state of muddle.
I now come to perhaps the more controversial part of what I have to say, and I must tell the House that this Order, against which the Prayer is moved, revokes the Cheese (Amendment No. 3) Order of 1950, Statutory Instrument 317. It does so, however, without prejudice to any proceedings in respect of any contravention of the principal Order as amended by the Amendment No. 3 Order and the previous one, the Amendment No. 2 Order. Our principal matter of complaint this evening is that serious injustice may arise if proceedings are taken—as is indicated in the Order they may be taken—and I shall have more to say in detail about that in a moment. Another complaint about this Order is that it fails to revoke Amendment No. 2 Order which has become unnecessary through the second paragraph of the Schedule to the present Order.
Although, as the House will no doubt be aware and as the Parliamentary Secretary certainly knows, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments consider several thousand Statutory Instruments each year, it reports on only a few of them to this House. When an Order is reported to the House, it behoves us to consider it very carefully indeed so that we may take notice of what the Committee have said and take advantage of the very careful research which they carry out with the aid of Counsel to Mr. Speaker. It will, perhaps, be easier for hon. Members to follow the astonishing sequence of events in this matter if they have in front of them three short Statutory Instruments of this year—Nos. 279, 317 and 583. By reference to these three Statutory Instruments, I will do my best to explain, as clearly as I can, the trouble which has arisen and I will try to disentangle the muddle.
The trouble began in the Cheese (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1950—S.I. No. 279—because that in that Order there was a serious mistake in Part I of the Schedule. The mistake was that it said that Petit Gruyere cheese was to have a maximum wholesale price of 26s. per cwt. The Ministry obviously meant to say that it was to have a wholesale price of 26s. per dozen boxes, which is a very different proposition. A box contains six portions of Gruyere cheese, with which we are all familiar, and, of course, a dozen boxes each containing six portions is a very much smaller quantity than one cwt.


One does not know who was responsible for this strange mistake. It may have been the draftsman, his typist, a printer, or somebody else, but the Order was signed by the then Minister of Food, who must, of course, bear the responsibility.
That same Statutory Instrument, after giving the maximum wholesale price of Gruyere cheese as 26s. per cwt., and doing so in error, went on to give the prices of Kosher and Wensleydale cheese as 298s. and 102s.; and by the use of ditto marks underneath the words "per cwt.," which were put against the price of Gruyere cheese, the Order quite rightly described the maximum prices of Kosher cheese and Wensleydale as being "per cwt."
That Order was made on 27th February. Ten days later the Ministry made an abortive attempt to correct the error which had been made regarding the Gruyere cheese. They published an amending Order known as The Cheese (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1950, S.I. No. 317. Unfortunately, however, that amending Order, although intended to correct the mistake, did not do its job properly. It corrected one mistake but it made two further mistakes. This is how it came about.
The No. 3 Order merely said that the principal Order, as amended, should be further amended by substituting in the case of Petit Gruyere cheese, "26s. per doz. boxes" instead of "26s. per cwt."—so far so good; but that meant that the ditto marks in the No. 2 Order became referable to "per dozen boxes" instead of to "per cwt.," as it should have been made referable. This meant that Kosher and Wensleydale cheese, which are normally sold by the cwt., had maximum prices attached to them "per dozen boxes." Of course, that was nonsense.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What is Kosher cheese?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member will have to consult somebody who has eaten it. As I have said, in trying to correct one mistake, the Ministry made two further mistakes and the confusion became worse confounded. For that the present Minister of Food must bear responsibility because he signed the Amendment No. 3 Order. When the Select Committee saw these two Orders

—and they saw them together, I believe—when we reassembled after Easter, they called upon the Ministry to submit a memorandum, which is to be found on page 3 of the first Report which the Select Committee has made to this Parliament. Before proceeding to consider that memorandum, I would elaborate my objections to the Order against which we are praying.
My first and principal objection is that this No. 4 Amendment Order revokes No. 3 Amendment Order without prejudice to proceedings already started as a result both of No. 2 Amendment Order and No. 3 Amendment Order. It should never have done such a thing and it would obviously be disgraceful if proceedings were to be taken against some innocent trader who took either of the Ministers at their word, that is to say, when they published these mistaken prices. Bearing in mind that No. 3 Amendment Order was in operation from 11th March until 9th April, there must have been a great deal of confusion among the already bewildered traders, who have a great deal to put up with in sorting out these complicated Regulations and the rationing system. The confusion lasted from 27th February, when No. 2 Amendment Order was published, until 9th April when No. 3 Amendment Order was revoked by the Order against which we are praying.
As a result of this confusion the position, as I see it—the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—is that from 11th March until 27th April it was forbidden to sell Petit Gruyere for more than 26s. per cwt., which is a fantastically low price. Presumably, traders during that time broke the law and the Ministry allowed them to do so during that fortnight. That such a thing should ever have happened is what brings the law into contempt and what we should try to avoid, if we can, by carefully scrutinising delegated legislation. A further result is that from 11th March until 9th April it was legally permissible to sell Kosher cheese or Wensleydale by wholesale at so much per dozen boxes instead of at so much per cwt. wholesale as it is normally sold. In case hon. Members are in doubt as to what sale by wholesale means, I would invite their attention to paragraph 1 of the principal Order of 1948 where we find that the definition, which, I feel, must have


been drafted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, is:
Sale by wholesale means any sale other than a sale by retail.
With regard to Kosher cheese and Wensleydale, obviously nobody could have been, or should be, prosecuted for selling at above any particular price per cwt. In other words, no one should be prosecuted in respect of any price he may have charged, wrongly from the moral point of view, perhaps, but, from the legal point of view, fully justified.
In view of the peculiar circumstances which arose, I feel that we should obtain from the Parliamentary Secretary an indication of what proceedings are pending and whether any of them are in respect of selling cheese above the maximum prices actually stated in error or intended by the Ministry to have been stated correctly. Those are the two circumstances with which he ought to deal. It would be only in respect of infringement of Amendment Orders No. 2 or No. 3 that our complaint would arise, but it is a serious matter in respect of those two Orders.
My next question and ground of complaint is: Why is it that in order that the matter might be tied up properly Amendment No. 2 Order has never been revoked? It is no longer necessary because the substance of it is contained in the now correct Schedule to Amendment No. 4 Order, against which we are praying. Therefore, Amendment No. 2 Order is quite unnecessary, and one would have thought that if Amendment No. 4 Order had been properly drafted it would have revoked Amendment No. 2 Order.
My final point compels me to complain about the way in which the Ministry of Food answered the questions so properly put by the Select Committee. That Committee is, after all, a Committee of this House, and I assume that I should be right in saying that a Select Committee, in asking a Government Department to submit a memorandum, is acting on behalf of this House. The Select Committee is representative of all parties. Party opinions are very rarely expressed there. It so happens that in this Parliament it is a Select Committee equally composed of Government and Opposition Members.
If hon. Members will look at this memorandum, which is on page 3 of the

Committee's first Report, they will agree, I think, that it is about as evasive and tendentious a document as could possibly have come out of a Government Department in reply to an inquiry from this House. I regret to have to say, but I feel it my duty to do so, that the tone of the memorandum is not in accordance with the high standards of what I would call the intellectual probity which we are accustomed to expect from our Civil Service. I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I failed to invite the attention of the House to it. I have not much complaint about the first two paragraphs of the memorandum, though I think that the last sentence of paragraph 2 is rather mincing words. It says:
The effect of the amendment made by the above Order, as the Committee has observed, would appear to be to alter the wholesale price of Kosher cheese and Wensleydale cheese.
It might have been better if, instead of that, it had stated:
The effect of the amendment made by the above Order was, as the Committee has observed, to alter the wholesale prices of Kosher cheese and Wensleydale cheese.
That was undoubtedly the effect. However, we can perhaps let that pass. In relation to the matters to which I am coming it is a small point. My real objection is to paragraph 3, which I shall read in full. It states:
In fairness to the draftsman it should be added that he took the view and still maintains that there is an arguable case for holding that, since S.I. No. 317 did no more than substitute a new item I in Part I of the First Schedule, relating to Petit Gruyere cheese, and did not purport to alter the prices of Kosher and Wensleydale cheese, which were already fixed as per cwt., those prices were not affected.
The validity of that contention is entirely exploded by the next sentence, but in a most peculiar way:
While that view may well be mistaken,"—
"may well be mistaken" my foot—
as the Committee holds, and as the Legal Adviser also holds, it is submitted, with the greatest respect, that it cannot fairly be stigmatised as carelessness
I think that really does call for comment.
If I may just refer to the last two lines of paragraph 4 of the memorandum, it says:
… and in future it is intended to avoid the use of ditto marks with their obvious possibilities of error.


There is a slight sign of repentence. But ditto marks can be very useful. They can save a lot of printing—[HON. MEMBERS: "And speaking."]—yes, and speaking too; and with a little more foresight and care a good deal of the time of this House might have been saved and the strain on my throat avoided. To make a sweeping statement in that way about the use of ditto marks is surely unwise. Ditto marks are used, especially in Schedules to legislation, throughout the whole of our Statute Book; and provided that there is reasonable care and not blatant carelessness in the way those marks are used, there is a great deal to be said in favour of their use. Over the years it may slightly reduce the cost of printing, especially when the enormous circulation of Bills and Acts of Parliament is recalled.

Mr. Messer: Does the hon. Member know that ditto marks are the same marks as are used to indicate an inch?

Mr. Renton: I do not think I can give the hon. Member an inch on that point because ditto marks are not, as a rule, preceded by a number. When that symbol for an inch is intended to be used to represent an inch it is always preceded by the number of inches which it is meant to indicate.
I do not wish to labour this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I have presented this matter in what I hope is a sensible, non-party and conciliatory spirit; and if I may say so, I do not think it is up to hon. Members opposite, when a Member of the Opposition is doing his duty to the House in drawing attention to a palpable and ridiculous mistake in delegated legislation, to try to discourage him in any way, or to make facetious and noisy interruptions.
May I end this part of my speech by saying that in the complicated details of modern administration it is not surprising if small clerical and printing and drafting errors are made? It is not surprising, it is perhaps unavoidable, and it is indeed excusable, if people are prepared to bring the trouble to an end as quickly as possible. What is inexcusable is to go to great pains, and cause a lot of trouble to this House, by trying to cover up those mistakes, as has been attempted in this case. The evasive tone

of the memorandum which I have already read out has been followed by the manner in which the Department has tried to put the matter in order.
To show what I think might have gone into the memorandum may I draw the attention of the House to a Statutory Instrument which came to my hand only today, in which the Board of Trade——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is this really relevant to the particular Order before the House?

Mr. Renton: With respect, if I may develop my argument it may seem to be, and I would say why I should like to draw attention to the explanatory note to the memorandum. The second paragraph says:
For ease of reference"—
those are the words I complain against most—
this Order consolidates Part 1 of the First Schedule to the principal Order, as amended, which sets forth the maximum prices of certain cheeses on sales other than to a manufacturer.
I complain against that phraseology. I was about to draw attention to a case in which the Board of Trade have most admirably corrected an error and explained in their memorandum that they have done so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the explanatory note is not part of the Order?

Mr. Renton: That is so. I appreciate that it is not part of the Order, but I submit that it would be in Order for this House to discuss the explanatory note in the same way that we discuss Financial Explanatory Memorandums to Bills and to Statutory Instruments. I respectfully submit that I should be in Order. As you have just come into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I think I can save you some anxiety and trouble of giving a decision on a point about which you have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the argument, by saying that I do not propose to refer to the further Statutory Instrument.
If the Ministry has been imbued with a desire to help the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, as they should have been, and if they have merely said, "This Order is to correct mistakes made


in two previous Orders," and if they had done that before the Committee got on their track, then the trade would have been saved a lot of trouble and I should not have had to—[An HON. MEMBER: "Weary the House."] The hon. Member almost takes the words out of my mouth. For these reasons, I do not consider that this Order clears up satisfactorily the administrative tangle created by two careless mistakes of two Ministers.

9.28 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
I have some sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in having, as I think he will this evening, to put on a white sheet, because he was not a member of the Government when this Order was made. On the other hand, he was a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments when they made the Report to which my hon. Friend referred. He is here tonight, with a certain dual loyalty; but he will have had the great advantage of service on that most valuable Committee which will enable him to appreciate the real importance of the points made by my hon. Friend.
In particular, I should like to direct his attention to what I am afraid I must describe as the untruthful explanatory note. The second paragraph of the explanatory Note to Order 583, starts:
For ease of reference this Order consolidates …
It does no consolidation whatsoever; it merely repeats a previous table with two very important corrections—altering "cwt." to "dozen boxes" in two places. That is not consolidation, and it is certainly not for ease of reference. The previous Order, which this Order amends, purports in its explanatory note to correct a textual error. I do not know what they think they mean by "textual error," but it does, in fact, correct a very important mistake, that of putting "cwt." instead of "dozen boxes."
It is very objectionable, when explanatory notes are taken in good faith by the general public and hon. Members of this House, that the Ministry should make any attempt to mislead them and cover up their mistakes, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, having had the experience which he has had of the Select

Committee on Statutory Instruments, will give attention to this matter.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I am not certain, with the greatest respect to the two hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken, whether the issue is very clearly before the House, but the point can be put very simply. There was a misprint in Statutory Order No. 279, and there was a further misprint in Statutory Order No. 317. For that reason, a Prayer is directed against Statutory Order No. 583, and hon. Members may ask why this particular Order was chosen. The answer very simply is that it is this Order which corrects the two misprints.
If the House were to carry this Motion, if those of us who have put our names to it were to be successful—and this is why I do not intend to press the matter to a Division—it would lead to the entire upsetting of the whole cheese rationing system, which would be most undesirable. It is not really a very suitable means of punishing a Minister by threatening to deprive the people of this country of their proper supply of cheese. However, it does seem to me that this Order provides an opportunity for us to consider, in relation to this particular Order and the difficulties which we experience, whether we ought not to take some steps in order to tackle the problem raised by the whole question of dealing with Statutory Orders in this House.
There is certainly one issue which led me to put my name to this Motion. Any issue of this sort which deals with food makes it absolutely essential that there should be, at the earliest possible moment, some degree of finality. The grocers up and down the country do not quite appreciate the legal niceties of the "ditto" sign, and, with the House so finely balanced as it is, the whole Order might be annulled and tomorrow there may not be any cheese ration at all. These are the sort of possibilities that make it very desirable that, when a Prayer is put down, it should be debated on the same day, and it was for that reason that I added my name to this Motion.
Of course, it sometimes happens that hon. Gentlemen associated with such Motions are not in their places, as has


happened in the past. I might give one example of the case when the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) had a Prayer on the Order Paper on 28th March, but did not move it on that day because the House sat so late. It was down for the next day, and hon. Members were in their places, but the hon. Gentleman did not move it then because the House rose so early. It is obviously desirable that some steps should be taken to see that these Prayers are resolved once and for all, upon the day when they are put down.

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): It is in a very real sense this time, that I crave the indulgence of the House, because I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. Only yesterday, I believe, I was a member of the Select Committee whose report to the House has instigated those hon. Members who have been praying against this Order tonight. Let me say at once that my Department agree that a mistake was made. I fact, in spite of what has been said, we readily admitted that mistake. Whether it was a felicitous way to admit it as a textual error or not, I do not know, but we made it as plain as possible that we were admitting our mistake. Unfortunately, in endeavouring to remedy that mistake, the draftsman, in drafting the Order, invoked the Select Committee to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Order was not sufficiently lucid. Again, I readily and properly accept that point of view. Let me say at once that I very much appreciate the work of the Select Committee and enjoyed the privilege of serving on it, particularly in the last Parliament, and that as far as I can I will ensure that the advice of that Committee is closely followed in the Department.
I wish to deal with some of the points raised. One was that we ought to have revoked Amendment No. 2 Order. In fact, that does not arise because the Order does other things as well as substituting one schedule for another. The remainder of that Order, of course, remains in force. Another point raised was on the memorandum of the Ministry of Food. I think I have already indicated that we do not admit an error on this occasion because, rightly or wrongly, the draftsman

took a particular point of view. In my opinion that was a mistaken point of view.
As regards the ditto marks, I think it is a little unfair to complain that we have made mistakes through the "dito" marks, and then to complain when we give instructions to avoid "ditto" marks in future. In spite of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) we intend to pursue the policy of abandoning the use of "ditto" marks, and I hope that that at least will prevent my ever having to give a similar explanation to the House.

On the question of paragraph 3, I very much appreciate the point that has been raised, and I assure the House that we are most anxious that no injustice, serious or otherwise, should result from this mistake. We had to incorporate paragraph 3 in the Order because this not only applies to wholesale sales, but to retail sales. Of course, there was no error, confusion, or misunderstanding as far as retail sales were concerned. I think it right and proper that I should give an assurance to the House that there will be no prosecution of any wholesaler in respect of any alleged offences committed by wholesalers during the period in question. I would go a little beyond the period suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I would take the period as from 2nd March. There have, in fact, been no prosecutions instituted during that period, and instructions have been given that no prosecutions should be taken.

I do not think I can do more than reiterate once again that we made a drafting error. Whether sufficiently frankly or not, it is not for me to say, but we admitted our error. We have now, at any rate, and to the satisfaction of the whole House, I believe, put that error right, and we hope that we shall learn from our experience.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I wonder if I might, as the mover of this Prayer, exercise what I understand is a right to make a second speech, very briefly, to deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), as well as to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we shall not be inviting the House to divide tonight.
The hon. and learned Member, if I understood him rightly, has made some


complaint about delay in bringing matters such as this to the House.

Mr. Bing: My complaint is shortly this: Hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not say the hon. Gentleman himself, but those with whom he is associated in this particular Prayer—put down a Prayer and then, when hon. Members have come here prepared to argue and deal with the matter, find, without any notice, that the Prayer has been withdrawn. That is an objectionable practice.

Mr. Renton: I am sure the House will appreciate that discussion on these problems in order to be effective should, if possible, take place at times convenient to hon. Members. Hon. Members putting down negative resolutions to move a Prayer to His Majesty have the right to choose the day for discussion. It so happens that today I have been very fortunate; I have chosen a day on which the discussion was able to start at a time obviously convenient to a great many hon. Members, whom we are glad to see here as a result. But it may very well be that the matter to be raised on the Prayer is a very complicated one, which would be a very great strain upon the attention of hon. Members at certain times of the night, and it may be much better not to proceed with the discussion on that occasion but to proceed with it on another occasion. At any rate, I am sure that the criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite irrelevant to anything that has taken place tonight, and that is the main reason why I venture to say what I do.
In view of the assurance the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I do not propose to ask the House to proceed to a Division. Nevertheless, I do feel that this matter could have been tidied up very much better by his Department. Especially is that so with regard to prosecutions, the matter about which he gave an assurance. There had only to be another sub-paragraph in paragraph 3 as a qualification of the general saving in that paragraph with regard to prosecutions and there might never have been the trouble, doubt and anxiety which has arisen in our minds tonight about the possible injustice arising from these errors.

Question put, and negatived.

HOUSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: After some hours of highly technical argument it is with some relief that I turn to a subject which lends itself to more coherent discussion, and I have no doubt that that will meet with favour in all parts of the House. There can be little doubt that one of the greatest social evils of today is the present housing shortage, and we cannot refer to it too often. Everyone in this House could produce his own evidence, as I can from Peterborough, of the numerous occasions upon which young people are prevented from getting married, or others whose marriages are of only a few months' duration are being broken up because of it. Two women in one kitchen never will work, yet the first choice of any young couple is to decide with which mother-in-law they are going to live, and whichever is chosen it is wrong, not only for the young people but for the old ones as well.
I think that everybody with any experience as a local councillor has had the situation where he is met at the top of the High Street by the young wife who pleads, "Can you help me get a house? My husband is good, but he cannot get on too well with my mother and things are becoming impossible." Then two minutes later at the bottom of the same High Street one meets the mother with her plea, "Can you help my daughter and her family get a house? I have got grandchildren, I have blood pressure and I know that I am sometimes irritable," and the whole thing is completely upset. It is not only one side that suffers. The young are thwarted and the old are not having the tranquillity that they deserve Far too often this is not the end.
I sit as a justice of the peace in an industrial area, and week after week in the domestic courts we have these sad, sordid stories where a man and wife are seeking separation and families are being divided. Nine out of ten such cases arise clearly from the housing shortage. I have often thought as I sat there that if we could calculate all the hours that


these young husbands spend away from work, hanging around the courts, waiting their turn, and could calculate the hours of lost production, we should find that they would amount to a few standards of timber in actual loss of production.
It does not end in court because the damage is still there. No man can give of his best if he leaves domestic discord in the morning and goes home from work at night knowing that the same atmosphere is still there. I am suggesting that we must not view this problem only as a temporary shortage of dwellings, inconvenient for the time being for certain people, because it is hitting at family life itself which, I believe, is the main prop of Christian civilisation.
In the face of such urgency, a new approach is essential. It is criminal, in my view, to continue with the policy: the mixture as before. The housing policy of the last four-and-a-half years has clearly failed. It has failed in merit to meet the need.

Mr. Porter: What about before the war?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Let us get up to date.

Mr. Nicholls: Two blacks do not make a white, and I am confining myself to the clear policy of the last four-and-a-half years. The Government have failed on their own record of two years ago. Then they were able to produce 228,000 houses and now they are down to 200,000 or 175,000. They have failed even with the few that have been erected, as the high cost of building is causing such high rents that the most deserving cases are having to think twice before they accept their turn because of the high rents. Speaking as a member of a firm of surveyors with some knowledge of estate development and, in addition, with 12 years as a councillor and a member of a housing committee, I say that it is madness to make the local authority the only instrument for house building. As a general rule, not only is the local authority not the best medium but in a period of emergency I should say that it is the worst possible medium for getting houses erected quickly.
It is bad enough for the practical builder to have to overcome the strictures

of control from the centre, but when, in addition, as a contractor to the local authority he has the added obstacles of standing orders as well, and the inconvenience of the dates of committee meetings when he wants a quick decision, then the handicap to speedy building is unquestionably colossal. From the time the decision is taken to build, it would take a private builder not more than five or six weeks to make a start on the actual building after obtaining the ordinary local planning permission.
A council could not start the same job in under six or seven months because of the routine which is essential in local government work of obtaining Ministry loan sanction, advertising for tenders, obtaining approval of tenders and then settling the contracts. In the case of a rural area, the time of starting would be more likely 12 months. Once a building has been commenced, the private builder will erect a house ready for occupation in six or seven months, but working by rigid contract terms and specifications, with all the delays whenever the inevitable variation of specifications is required, the local authority is lucky if it can get the house built in less than 12 months. This extra time is bound to reflect itself in higher costs, and eventually in higher rents.
I should like to make it clear that I am not criticising local councils or council officials. They have to adhere to the committee timetable and deal with other questions as well as the housing problems we all have. They have to bear in mind their standing orders and their statutory obligations. In many cases where they have tried to bypass any of these in the interests of speed, they have had to face the investigation of the district auditor who, above all else, must keep the integrity of local authorities above the slightest risk of blemish.
I do not blame the local councillors or council officials, and it is for this reason that I deplore the attitude of Members opposite, both in this House and in their constituencies, who out of some form of perverted loyalty to party try to excuse their own failure at the centre by blaming the local authorities. Blaming the local authority, whatever its political complexion, is clearly cheating. It is not the Socialist council or the Conservative council that is at fault, but the system they are forced to work to, with its


restrictions and controls at the centre added to the delays inherent in the committee procedure of the council, all so intermixed and tied together that the magician Merlin himself would not be able to produce the houses speedily enough.
That is the background, and I have initiated this Adjournment Debate to try once again to draw the Minister's attention to these vital facts, so well known to everyone in the building trade or technical departments of the local authorities. I should like to put forward two constructive suggestions. My first is that local authorities should be encouraged to make far more use of the Ministry's Circular 9246, under which a house can be built by a private builder to his own approved design and afterwards sold to the local authority who decide the tenants. This idea was suggested by the National Federation of Building Trades and the Federation of Registered Housebuilders, and it was incorporated in this circular.
I would suggest that its effectiveness was blunted at once because of the intermixture in the same circular of other schemes to do with small buildings, and by a general lack of enthusiasm by the Minister and his regional officials in giving effect to it. It was blunted even more by the anti-private enterprise councillors who at that time controlled many of the local authorities. In cases where it was made use of it was undoubtedly a success, and I should like to quote two cases, one in 1946 and the other in 1949, to show how over the whole period, if it had worked effectively, it would have allowed more houses to have been produced more quickly and at the cheapest possible price.
I should like to give my example in the form of a table. The two headings I would suggest are: (a) the private firms building on their own land to their own approved designs who afterwards sell to a local authority, and (b) the building contractors building on council land to council specifications and under council supervision. Both of these schemes were started at the same time in 1946.
A, the private builder, built 37 houses, and B under contract to the local authority built 22 houses. The time the builder took to build the 37 on his own land was 13 months while for the local

authority it was 15 months, that is 11 days per house for a private builder on his own land and 20 days per house for a builder building under local authority supervision. The cost by the private builder was £1,150 per house and for the local authority it was £1,450 per house. The private builder's rent was 14s. 7d. per week and the other was 18s. 1d. per week. The size of the private builder's house was 905 superficial square feet and the local authority's house 1,088 square feet. Before leaving the example I should explain that the size of A's house, whilst it was smaller than the size of B's, showed that the private builder building on his own land and selling to the local authority was £60 per house cheaper and the building was more than 25 per cent. quicker. That was in 1946 and the same state of affairs can be seen today.
In my own constituency I have the evidence of a builder who developed his own land under his own specification for selling to the local authority. The houses are 1,000 superficial square feet and including the cost of the site, legal costs and services, he is able to sell them under £1,300. In the same area, builders under contract to the local authority with all the rigid strait-jacket central and local controls to which I have referred are taking 11 to 12 months as against six to seven months, and the cost of £1,500 to £1,600 as against £1,300. So my first suggestion is to popularise the scheme for building firms both large and small. The circular refers to small and big firms, and we should popularise the scheme for all of them to build on their own land to their own specification to sell to the local authority afterwards. This was approved of by the independent Felix Pole Report of 1944, a report which to my mind has not had anything like the attention it deserves.
My second suggestion is that the number of houses allocated to the local authority areas should be by value rather than by the number of dwellings. At the present time many authorities build a standard type of house usually with three bedrooms, regardless of the housing lists and in many cases these houses are not fully occupied. The object of tying local authorities down to a financial allocation is to ensure some control of the available labour and materials. But labour plus materials can best be


expressed by value rather than by housing units. Local authorities receiving an allocation on value basis would be inclined to try and get the maximum number of houses out of the valuation, and would, therefore, be more inclined to look scientifically into their housing needs in an effort to build for the actual requirements of the area.
With the money which local authorities may have expended since the war in building 500 houses, they would have got 600 houses for the same amount of money had they had the chance two or three years ago of building smaller houses with a more suitable design. Bearing in mind that rents really must be cut down, because that is the problem next to the shortage itself——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Mr. Nicholls: Bearing that in mind, I would recommend that local authorities should be encouraged to build more two-bedroomed houses so that these can be exchanged for the existing three-bedroomed or four-bedroomed types when families have grown up and no longer need the extra accommodation. I know that these suggestions would still leave us only on the fringe of overcoming the housing famine. I admit that last week, in giving greater latitude to local authorities in the ratio of house building for sale, the Minister of Health has taken a step—a very small one—in the right direction. But even there he has not gone nearly far enough. The new decision, taken so late in the day, will result in some increase in the number of new houses built privately, but even now the private builder has nothing like the freedom he must have if he is to make a full contribution to reducing the cost of house building, as we must if we are to relieve this great housing tragedy that surrounds us.
I therefore ask the Minister to think again, to abolish the ratio altogether, and to give favourable consideration to the propositions that I have put to him tonight, which have the benefit of being recommended by the most practical men in the building trade. We must have

houses, and the dangers from the neglect of that matter are so very real and the human suffering is so great as a consequence that we ought to take housing out of the cockpit of party dispute and dogma and treat it as a national problem.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) has raised a matter which is of national importance, and one upon which we ought to concentrate our attention. I speak as a member of a local authority for the past 19 years in the great City of Manchester. I have been brought, as so many other members of local authorities have, face to face with this dire problem of housing. I would say to the hon. Member who introduced this Adjournment Debate, and to hon. Members opposite, that this is no question for making party capital. The Opposition, however, ever since I have been in this House, have been endeavouring to make party capital out of the serious housing position. When one compares the record of this Labour Government during the past five years with the very sorry position of housing between the two wars, when there was ample labour and material, one remembers that millions of the citizens of this country, particularly in the industrial areas, were doomed to live under the most terrible conditions.

Lieut.-ColoneI Elliot: We built 377,000 houses.

Hon. Members: In which year?

Mr. Lever: The housing position in our industrial areas is a standing disgrace and a testimony to the gross neglect of the Opposition in regard to this matter, between the two wars and before. In our industrial areas thousands of families are doomed to live and bring up their children in houses where there are no baths, and where no facilities for washing were made available by the friends of Members of the Opposition.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: They have no baths today.

Mr. Lever: May I say, as one who is interested in this housing question, as we all are on this side of the House——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Build some houses, then.

Mr. Lever: We welcome the building of houses by local authorities and every other source which will help to meet this problem. The whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough was simply concerned with trying to get more opportunity for building houses by private builders for profit. He wants more private building and less local authority building—[An HON. MEMBER: "He wants more houses."]—when it is notoriously the fact that houses built by local authorities by direct labour are let at rents which are much lower than the rents of houses built by private builders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The hon. Member spoke about the building of houses by private builders and he says that those houses should be sold to the local authorities. At what prices does he suggest private builders would sell to local authorities?

Mr. H. Nicholls: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Lever: Are private builders going to hold local authorities to ransom in the same way as the landowners held municipal authorities to ransom in regard to the price of land before the Town and Country Planning Act was passed? [Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but in the city of Manchester we were for years prevented from building houses for people in our central areas simply because of the very high price of land demanded by landowners.
The Opposition ask for lower house rents. Is that simply with the idea of making political capital? It is notoriously the fact that it was hon. Members opposite and their friends who, when the Ridley Committee considered the question of house rents, advocated that landowners should have a free market in increasing rents? In 1943, when the Ridley Committee was set up, landowners and estate organisations advocated that they should be given the opportunity of increasing their rents by 20 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The local authorities do more than that today.

Mr. Lever: How can hon. Members opposite suggest that rents should be lowered when I have found throughout the years, in my experience as a professional man in the City of Manchester——

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is not an estate agent.

Mr. Lever: As a solicitor in the City of Manchester who has assisted poor tenants for many years I know perfectly well that people have been——

Mr. G. B. Craddock: rose—

Mr. Lever: I can only conclude that the subject to which I am referring is unpalatable to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Craddock: Which Government introduced the Rent Restriction Acts?

Mr. Lever: Ever since the Rent Restriction Acts were introduced it has been part of the policy of the Tory Party to whittle away their effect. Had it not been that public opinion was strongly against it, they would have sought to abolish those Acts so that the tenants would have had to pay whatever increases in rent the landowners wished them to pay. I want the country to know that during the past five years the Labour Party has provided 1,135,000 homes for the people——

Mr. H. Nicholls: How many?

Mr. Lever: Over one million homes for the people. We are building now to the tune of 200,000 houses during the current year, and I am sure that the country knows that if it were possible to build more houses this Government would build them. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, they would. After all is said and done, it was not hon. Members on this side of the House who condemned the poorest of the poor to be herded together in the working-class industrial areas of our cities.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Government are doing it now.

Mr. Lever: The reason why there is a housing shortage today is because the people, thanks to the new outlook which this Labour Government have given them, feel that they ought to have homes of their own whereas in days gone by we found, in our industrial areas, three and four families living in one room. Often when I used to go around canvassing my electorate, they said with a sense of pride—but it reflected a terrible situation—"We have 16 votes in our house to give you, Mr. Lever." That in itself is a commentary on the miserable conditions to which hon. Members of the Conservative Party condemn the masses of


our people. The Minister of Health, who knows the needs of the people, has done a splendid job. I congratulate him warmly on the initiative he has taken, on the opportunities he has given the people of this country to live happier and fuller lives, and I hope that the good work of this Government in the field of housing will continue.

10.12 p.m.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for what I might describe as the somewhat pathetic speech to which we have just listened. I think we should congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) on initiating this Debate tonight, and I am sure we cannot have too many of these Debates on housing, if only to force upon the Minister the realisation that notwithstanding the ingrowing self-satisfaction which appears to pervade right hon. and hon. Members opposite about everything concerning the Socialist Government, the broad mass of the people are not so favourably disposed towards their housing policy.
I wondered, as I listened to the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) whether he and his colleagues, except during the period of the election, have bothered their heads much about what is happening regarding housing up and down the country.

Mr. Lever: We have.

Squadron-Leader Cooper: So far as the number of houses built since the end of the war is concerned, I doubt whether they have succeeded in equalling the number that were destroyed during the war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a fact that there are still hundreds of thousands of people who are living in conditions which are an appalling and dreadful commentary upon the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Fernyhough: It has been like that for 50 years.

Squadron-Leader Cooper: During the inter-war years the average number of houses built by successive Governments was well over the 300,000 mark——

Hon Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me——

Hon. Members: Do not give way.

Squadron-Leader Cooper: That building was done without any assistance from the central Government. Houses were built in large numbers and of a type and at a price which hundreds of thousands of people could afford to buy.

Mr. Fernyhough: Those who live in them cannot shut the doors or open the windows.

Squadron-Leader Cooper: They could not afford to buy them today even if they were available. Many of those houses which are criticised by hon. Members opposite stood up to the bombing effectively. It is doubtful whether many of the traps put up today at substantially higher prices could do the same. What is happening today? With magnificent central planing, with control from the centre restricting the local authorities as they have never been restricted before, the Minister stands in the way of house construction when the local authorities want to do their job properly.
Last year we did not succeed in building 200,000—about 185,000 was the figure, somewhat less than half of what was done before the war. What a triumph for Socialist planning. What a measure of success for hon. Members opposite to laud themselves in congratulatory phrases. They stand for ever condemned before the people of this country for a disgraceful policy on housing, and the electors at the last election showed their displeasure of this in no mean manner.

Mr. Manuel: But we are still here.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am sorry that the Opposition should have indulged in a little pre-local election campaign here this evening. It is unfortunate that very often when hon. Members raise this serious subject of housing it appears to hon. Members opposite to be a matter for general mirth rather than for serious constructive proposals. In this case I welcome the two suggestions which were put forward by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), who raised the subject here tonight. He


attempted in the later part of his speech to bring rather a new spirit to this subject in making one or two constructive proposals. I was rather interested in hearing his proposals and I should be glad to know whether the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), would support them officially on behalf of his party.
The hon. Member for Peterborough said quite clearly that he would abolish altogether the ratio of private buildings for sale as against local authority building. I would be very interested to know——

Mr. H. Nicholls: I would abolish it and leave the decision to the local authority. They know their needs. Let them decide whether it shall be one in four, one in two, or any other figure. Let them make their decision.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Presumably, therefore, some local authorities, who in the inter-war years carried out practically no local authority housing at all to meet the very real and urgent needs of their areas, would be allowed, if they so desired, not to provide any now. The misfortune would be to those living in the district who, on that basis, could make no claim. I would be very glad indeed to hear whether this proposal of the hon. Member for Peterborough has the official support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We have been trying to secure some information from hon. Members opposite as to their policy on housing, and this seems a suitable opportunity to try to find whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would care to give support to the hon. Member for Peterborough on this occasion. Apparently not——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Give me time and I will——

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was merely wanting a straight answer——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member should give me time—he has challenged me.

Mr. Blenkinsop: —whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to give his support to the clear proposal put forward by his hon. Friend behind him to abolish the ratio altogether.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Give me time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I can tell that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would only do a little more general word-spinning, of which he is a past master, and he is certainly not prepared to give a clear answer. If he were——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has resumed his seat. Has he concluded his speech?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let him resume his seat and halve the time with me, and I will tell him all he wants to know.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right and gallant Gentleman is a wily bird in debate in this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Give me five minutes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What is quite clear is that he is not prepared to commit himself to support for his hon. Friend behind him. I did not think that he would be.
The hon. Member for Peterborough, in opening the Debate, called attention to the general tragedy of lack of housing which affects very many people. All of us are equally concerned in that tragedy. No one party, no one group of people, is, presumably, more concerned than another. It is certainly not a temporary shortage of dwellings. It is a shortage that has been experienced by my own constituents and many other constituents for very many years. The hon. Member called attention to the tragedy of those who have to live with in-laws on either side. It must be within his knowledge, as it is within mine, that before the war it was a very rare thing for a newly-married couple, in the average working class home, to have a chance of starting in a new house at all. That was certainly so in the industrial areas from which I come and it makes quite clear that this problem is no new one.
While we certainly appreciate its seriousness, we know also that it is a problem which has afflicted us for very many years. Today, for the first time, many of these people are having an opportunity of getting a new house, of which they were never able to take advantage in the old days because they had not the income available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly true and


hon. Members are sticking their heads in the sand if they do not appreciate it.
Of course there is this method of solving the housing problem, which, no doubt hon. Members opposite might adopt. They would soon cut down the housing lists if unemployment were to rise again. We are not prepared to solve the housing problem in that way. The main contention of the hon. Member for Peterborough was that the local authority is the worst medium for housing building. Now it depends upon what sort of houses we want and for what section of the community we want to provide houses. If we are concerned merely in building houses for those who can afford to pay large prices, unquestionably the private speculative building, of which we saw so much in the interwar years, would meet that need.
We have been concerned and, I believe, properly concerned, with devoting the whole of our attention to the major needs of the people. If that is the desire, then the local authority as the democratic locally elected body is the only authority that should have the power of deciding who shall have houses and who shall not.

Mr. Nicholls: I never questioned in this Debate the allocation of the houses; it is the erection of the houses. The allocation of the houses would still be in the hands of the local authority after they had bought them from the private builder.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I understood from the hon. Member that he would abolish the ratio of private licensing. If he were to abolish the ratio of private licensing in many cases he would provide that no houses should be made available for local authority allocation at all. He must make his position on that quite clear.
The hon. Member also seemed to suggest that there should be no check or control on the work of the private builder. His main objection to the local authority as a medium for house building is that the local authorities apply very strict controls and checks upon the method of building, the standards and the full specifications of house building. That that is necessary, is proved over and over again by the disastrous results of private speculative building throughout the interwar years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Hon. Members do not need to go far from

this House to see plenty of examples of distressing speculative building—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] On the outskirts of this very city.
The hon. Member who introduced the subject put forward two constructive suggestions and I am very glad we had them. First, he said it ought to be possible to use the Minister's Circular 92/46 more fully. A great deal of use has been made of this circular, particularly by the small builder who has not the staff to carry out the detailed specification work which is normally required. Provided that the small builder has a good reputation in that district and is known to have done good work in the past, there is no reason why he should not be employed by the local authority. I am glad to say that a large number of houses have been built in this way.

Mr. Nicholls: How many?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was about to give the hon. Member the figures. Up to 31st March this year, more than 15,000 houses had been completed by private builders, small builders, on land owned by local authorities under the scheme which releases them from specifications which would otherwise be required, and a further 15,000 houses have been completed on land owned by builders, again with a simplification of procedure. We are very willing to approve any proposals which local authorities put forward under those schemes outlined in Circular 92/46, and I am glad to say that many authorities are taking advantage of them, including some not far from the hon. Member's constituency.
I have here an example which has just been provided at very short notice. I only knew a matter of a few hours ago that the hon. Member intended to raise this point. I was able to find that the one scheme operated in his own constituency was perhaps not very successful so far as time was concerned. The hon. Member made a great deal of the fact that private house building could be done, provided there were no checks by the local authority, much more quickly. In this one case where there was a great reduction in the number of checks by the local authority, the time taken was exceptionally long. This was a small scheme by a small builder which was started in September, 1946, and was not finished until June, 1948.
It is wrong to build up too much on an individual case just as it is to do so on one or two cases which the hon. Member put before the House, but it is certainly not true that overall there is necessarily a longer time taken on local authority contracts as against private contracts. There is no real evidence of that, and neither is there any evidence of private enterprise being able to build houses more cheaply than local authorities or their contractors. That is the wording of the Girdwood Report itself.

Mr. Nicholls: Does the Minister consider the Girdwood Report good or bad evidence?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Here is the Girdwood Report stating:
We are not in a position to state that private enterprise has been able to build houses more cheaply than local authorities or their contractors.

Mr. Nicholls: What about the speed?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The whole point made by the hon. Member was that by building more rapidly they claimed they were building more cheaply. It was a cheapness of building to which the hon. Member was referring.
The hon. Member raised the issue of whether it would not be possible to make allocations to local authorities in money terms rather than in units. I do not know

that there would be any advantage in that. The allocations in units are not so restrictive as the hon. Members appears to imagine. We are always prepared to consider the needs of the area when proposals are submitted by the local authorities, and we have already—last year—circularised local authorities asking them to pay special attention to the needs of smaller houses. That was done some time ago. We appreciate the point, and it has in fact been well covered.
While we are very willing to hear constructive proposals from the other side of the House, as to means by which we can improve the speed of house building, the tragedy in so many of the housing Debates that we have had is that so rarely have we managed to get any official statement from the Opposition as to precisely what they in their turn would do. I fear that, as on other occasions, that is the position tonight.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only say that it was well said of old by Pilate, "What is truth?" and he did not stop for an answer. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.